40 Ala. App. 671 - Sledge v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2004
2 federal appellate · 20 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 Mason v. State · Gassenheimer v. State · 18 Ala. App. 578 - Leverett v. State · Milam v. State · Coleman v. . People of the State of N.Y.
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Here, in examining the crucial statutory element under § 338, supra, we are concerned with whether Sledge wittingly or unwittingly bought a stolen hog or had reasonable ground for believing he had bought a stolen hog. Receiving stolen goods may present three separate facets of the mind of the prisoner: (1) knowledge of the goods having been stolen, the scienter; (2) intent to deprive the true owner of possession, the animus furandi; and (3) criminal intent generally, the mens rea. “Wigmore (Evidence, 3rd Ed.), §§ 324, 325, divides the instant problem into two principles: the Knowledge principle; and the Intent principle. See United States v. Brand, 2 Cir., 79 F.2d 605 . “However, to take either of Wig-more’s principles, it would be necessary to demonstrate that the admission would not violate the rule against reception of evidence of other offenses or of matter from which complicity in another offense might be inferred. Mason v. State, 259 Ala. 438 , 66 So.2d 557 , 42 A.L.R.2d 847 (proof of other robberies linked with the charged robbery only in time and in identity of the defendant reversible error). “We consider our cases follow the view of the minority in People v. Marino, 271 N.Y. 317 , 3 N.E.2d 439 , 105 A.L.R. 1283 . Piano v. State, 161 Ala. 88 , 49 So. 803 ; Morris v. State, 17 Ala.App. 126 , 82 So. 574 ; Leverett v. State, 18 Ala.App. 578 , 93 So. 347 ; Glover v. State, 21 Ala.App. 423 , 109 So. 125 ; Little v. State, 24 Ala.App. 484 , 136 So. 864 ; and Davis v. Stat”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"To show scienter of receiving stolen goods, proof of other like offenses must be confined to proof of purchases from the same thief from whom the alleged receiver got the goods laid in the indictment sub judice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Casey
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.