370 So. 2d 1075 - Meredith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 state decisions

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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “". . . [T]he general rule is that prejudicial statements, even though improper, are considered capable of being eradicated by the trial judge in sustaining objections thereto or by appropriate instructions to the jury or both. Allred v. State , supra [ 291 Ala. 34 , 277 So.2d 339 (1973)]; Dunn v. State , 277 Ala. 39 at 44, 166 So.2d 878 (1964); Bachelor v. State , 216 Ala. 356 , 361 , 113 So. 67 (1927); Anderson v. State , 209 Ala. 36 , 44 , 95 So. 171 (1922)." (Emphasis added.)”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Armstrong v. State · 431 So. 2d 586 - Miller v. State

2. “Unusual or weird behavior alone cannot be equated with mental insanity.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 542 So. 2d 1286 - Thompson v. State · 518 So. 2d 816 - Carr v. State

3. “"Where the defense of insanity is interposed, it first becomes a question of law whether the form of insanity attempted to be proved is a legal defense, or whether the facts proved would justify an inference of mental unsoundness; but, if the defense is allowed, unless the evidence thereon is legally insufficient or so conclusive as to warrant the issue being taken from the jury, or unless there is no real conflict in the evidence, the insanity of accused at the time of the crime is a question of fact to be determined by the jury, under proper instructions from the court. . . . "While the mere assertion of the defense of insanity is not, of itself, sufficient to entitle accused to go to the jury on such defense, only slight evidence of insanity at the time of the commission of the crime is required to raise the issue for submission to the jury; and if reasonable minds can reach different conclusions from the evidence, the question is for the jury. If, however, after giving the evidence the most favorable interpretation in favor of accused asserting the defense, an adverse conclusion must be reasonably reached, it is the duty of the court to rule on the issue as a matter of law and not *Page 162 permit the jury to speculate on the question."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 428 So. 2d 155 - Young v. State