401 So. 2d 789 - Wilcox v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"As noted by our Supreme Court in Deason v. State, 363 So.2d 1001 (Ala. 1978), `[T]his is permissible under our statute [§ 15-8-52, Code of Alabama 1975] ... and places no obligation upon the prosecution to elect beforehand which of those offenses it intends to prove.' This situation is to be distinguished from one in which the indictment alleges one offense and different instances of that offense are made the subject of proof by the prosecution; in such instances the court should compel election: `The court will not exercise its power to compel an election unless it appears either from the indictment or the evidence that an attempt is made to convict the accused of two or more offenses growing out of separate and distinct transactions. Mayo v. State, 30 Ala. 32 ; Wooster v. State, 55 Ala. 217 , Butler v. State, 91 Ala. 87 , 9 So. 191 .' Brooms v. State, 197 Ala. 419, 425 , 73 So. 35, 37 (1916) (Mayfield, J. concurring); Deason v. State, supra ."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 512 So. 2d 804 - Reed v. State · 476 So. 2d 626 - Crittenden v. State

2. “"A careful solicitor should always frame the indictment with as many counts as may be necessary to meet the different phases the evidence may assume. Embezzlement and larceny, burglary and larceny, larceny and receiving stolen property, and offenses of like character may properly be joined in separate counts in the same indictment."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 476 So. 2d 626 - Crittenden v. State