384 So. 2d 864 - Roberson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`Our Constitution, Section 3, does not seem to have been considered in connection with this principle, and we find that the state of the record in this case does not require a decision of its effect on the common-law rule.' "Section 3 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 guarantees that `no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship' and that the `capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles'. The Alabama Supreme Court has not, in formal opinion, decided the effect of this constitutional provision upon the common law rule requiring a belief in a Supreme Being as the avenger of falsehood as the test for the competency of a witness. However, in Wright v. State , 24 Ala. App. 378 , 135 So. 636 (1931), the Alabama Court of Appeals considered this very question. There, a majority of the Court (Bricken, P.J., and Rice, J., with Samford, J., dissenting) held that Section 3 of the Constitution `completely abrogates the common-law rule'. See 6 Wigmore, Evidence , § 1828 (b) (Chadbourn Rev. 1976). Consequently, testimony from an atheist must be admitted into evidence. Rodgers v. State , 42 Ala. App. 660 , 177 So.2d 460 , cert. denied, 278 Ala. 712 , 177 So.2d 464 (1965). "Although dicta, this Court in Conner v. State , 52 Ala. App. 82 , 87 , 289 So.2d 650 (1973), cert. denied, 292 Ala. 716 , 289 So.2d 656 (1974) stated: "`We do not think that our cases call for a religious test in contra”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 386 So. 2d 776 - Harville v. State · 539 So. 2d 451 - Rogers v. State

2. “"At common law the oath was regarded as a `summoning of divine vengeance upon false swearing, whereby when the spectators see the witness standing unharmed they know that the divine judgment has pronounced him to be a truth-teller.' 6 Wigmore, Evidence , § 1816 (Chadbourn Rev. 1976). The oath involved `a belief in a superhuman (and therefore inevitable) retribution to follow false swearing'. 6 Wigmore, § 1817. This belief is inherent in the very definition of an oath, Blackburn v. State , 71 Ala. 319 , 321-322 (1882); Goolsby v. State , 17 Ala. App. 545 , 546 , 86 So. 137 (1920), and was required at common law *Page 780 before a witness could testify under oath. C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence , § 94.02 (1). Under the common law rule the lack of such religious training and instruction as `excited a hope of future reward to the good and fear of punishment to the wicked' disqualified and rendered one incompetent as a witness. Jones v. State , 145 Ala. 51 , 40 So. 947 (1906). "`By the common law no particular form of religious belief was insisted on as the test of competency, other than that there should be a belief in an omniscient Supreme Being as the rewarder of truth and the avenger of falsehood.' Marshall v. State , 219 Ala. 83 , 86 , 121 So. 72 (1929).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 386 So. 2d 776 - Harville v. State