38 Ala. App. 662 - Shiflett v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently September 1987
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 Way v. State · 31 Ala. App. 571 - Mullins v. State · Moulton v. State · Shiflett v. State · Johnson 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.
““The defendant again offered the testimony of Dr. Hardwick as to Mrs. Shiflett’s saying, T don’t believe Harold meant to do it.’ This offer apparently was bottomed on the immediately-upon-regaining-consciousness-statement theory as a part of the- res gestae exception to the hearsay rule. 32 C.J.S., Evidence, § 419, note 34, p. 52; 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, Sec. 672; 163 A.L.R. at page 164. “The statement was made in the emergency room at the hospital some three to five minutes after she became conscious. Apparently Mrs. Shiflett did not speak at all for some time, i. e., three to five minutes. Her first statement was to ask if she would recover ( 262 Ala. 337 at page 344, 78 So.2d 805 at page .811). Then, as a police officer came in the room, Dr. Hardwick said, ‘Betty, Officer Haynes has come to ask you something about what happened.’ The doctor continued, ‘Betty, how did all this happen?’ To which she gave the answer the defendant sought to get told to the jury. “The trial court refused the admission of her answer as being an opinion. With this ruling we agree. The statement came as the response to a question which required reflection to answer. See Norwood v. State, 11 Ala.App. 30 , 65 So. 851 . The principle of spontaneous exclamation may not require that the declaration be speedy but it must be spontaneous. The vice is not after-speech but after-thought.””
2 later decisions 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.