368 So. 2d 310 - Perry v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently September 2016
19 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Bruno v. United States · Lakeside v. Oregon · Turner v. State · Alston v. State · 29 Ala. App. 13 - Turner v. State
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Subjective analysis on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether such error has affected the substantial rights of the accused, has no field of operation where, as here, the denial of the requested instruction is tantamount to the denial of the fundamental right of the accused, as constitutionally and statutorily mandated, to elect not to testify. "”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ruocco · Popwell v. State“"[W]e observe that it has long been the law of this State that the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination (Art. [I], § 6, Alabama Constitution 1901), as augmented by [Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-220 ], renders the refusal of a requested jury instruction on the legal effect of an accused's exercise of that right reversible error."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Phillips v. State · Weaver v. State““There, the defendant requested the court to charge the jury that ‘no inference or conclusion should be drawn by the jury from the fact that the defendant was not sworn and put on the stand as a witness in his own behalf, nor should this fact have any weight with the jury in reaching a verdict.’ “The Supreme Court in Thomas reversed, holding: “1) The charge in substance states the law applicable to the case; “2) It was a fact that the defendant failed to make the request to testify in the case and the charge should not be condemned as being abstract; “3) The charge cannot be condemned as being argumentative because it contained nothing more than the statement of an admitted fact and the law applicable under the statute [presently codified in § 12-21-220, Code of Alabama 1975].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Popwell v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.