Houston v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1990
12 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 Bates v. State · Washington v. State · Smith v. State · Bankhead v. State · 23 Ala. App. 116 - Tanner 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The judgment entry shows that upon the appellant’s arraignment he entered a plea of guilty, was adjudged guilty by the court and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of ten years. All this without the intervention of a jury. “In addition to Section 398, supra, providing that punishment for violation of said section shall be fixed at the discretion of the jury, we also have Section 70, Title 30, Code of Alabama 1940 , which provides that if in a capital case a defendant enters a plea of guilty at any time before a special venire is drawn for the trial, a trial shall be had and the degree of guilt, and the punishment, fixed by a jury to be selected from the panel of regular petit jurors organized by the court during such week as the case is set for trial, in the same manner as juries are organized for trial of non-capital felonies. “Either of the above code provisions would require a reversal of this cause. “In Tanner v. State, 23 Ala.App. 116 , 121 So. 693 , and Smith v. State, 23 Ala.App. 106 , 121 So. 692 , the accused in •each case was found guilty by respective juries which failed to fix the punishment in their verdicts. The court, in each case, attempted to fix the punishment. In reversing the causes this court pointed out that the jury alone is authorized to fix punishment in carnal knowledge cases. “The fact that the minimum punishment was imposed by the court is immaterial, since the court is unauthorized to fix any punishment in this type of case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.