375 So. 2d 523 - Daniels v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) No determination made under the provisions of this chapter shall disqualify any youth for public office or public employment, operate as a forfeiture of any right or privilege or make him ineligible to receive any license granted by public authority, and such determination shall not be deemed a conviction of crime; provided, however, that if he is subsequently convicted of crime, the prior adjudication as youthful offender shall be considered. (Emphasis added). (b) The fingerprints and photographs and other records of a person adjudged a youthful offender shall not be open to public inspection; provided, however, that the court may, in its discretion, permit the inspection of papers or records.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Beal · 445 So. 2d 992 - Thomas v. State

2. “"[A] plea of former jeopardy is unavailing unless the offense presently charged is precisely the same in law and on fact as the former one relied on under the plea, and this is true even if both cases are founded on the same facts, but the crimes charged were not the same in law." Daniels v. State , 375 So.2d 523 , (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), and cases cited therein.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Garrett v. State · 435 So. 2d 1360 - Story v. State

3. “"The most common manner of eliciting a witness' former conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, as a means of impeaching his credibility, is to question him on cross-examination regarding such conviction . . . . "While there is no prescribed form for the question which is asked to elicit a conviction for impeachment purposes, there have been judicially declared guidelines for such a question. For example, the question must be structured in such a way as to exclude any reasonable supposition that the witness is being called upon to answer concerning his conviction for an offense which does not involve moral turpitude. In addition, the question must be specific to the point of naming the crime for the conviction of which the witness is being impeached. The question: `Have you ever been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude? is insufficient and improper because an answer to such a question would involve the witness' judgment as to what offenses involve moral turpitude." [Footnotes omitted.] Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 145.01 (8) (3d ed. 1977).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 380 So. 2d 342 - Stonoker v. State