405 So. 2d 41 - Miller v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Judd v. Haley (2001), 420 So. 2d 812 - Harris v. State (1982)
2 federal appellate · 58 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 Dothard v. Rawlinson · Mason v. State · 363 So. 2d 1020 - Thomas v. State · 29 Ala. App. 349 - Wilkins v. State · 54 Ala. App. 491 - Bowens 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The culpable participation of the accomplice need not be proved by positive testimony, and indeed rarely is so proved. Fuller v. State, 43 Ala.App. 632 , 198 So.2d 625 . Rather, the jury must examine the conduct of the parties and the testimony as to the surrounding circumstances to determine its existence.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Woods v. State · Arthur v. State“(1) Relevancy to prove physical capacity, skill, or means to commit the now-charged crime; (2) part of the res gestae or part of a continuous transaction; (3) relevancy to prove scienter or guilty knowledge; (4) relevancy to prove criminal intent; (5) relevancy to prove plan, design, scheme, or system; (6) relevancy to prove motive; (7) relevancy to prove identity; (8) relevancy to rebut special defenses; and (9) relevancy in various particular crimes.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The law says that in order to prove a defendant guilty of a particular crime, it is not necessarily required that the State prove that the defendant himself personally committed the act which constitutes that crime, "Instead, in certain circumstances, the law makes a defendant responsible for the criminal acts of another person. More specifically, the law provides that a defendant is responsible for the criminal acts of another person if, with the intent to promote or assist the commission of that offense, he aids or abets such other person in committing that offense. "The words `aid or abet' include all assistance rendered by acts or words of encouragement or support or presence by the defendant, either actual or constructive presence, with the intent to render assistance should it become necessary. The mere presence of a defendant who intends to assist with the criminal act, should it become necessary, is aiding and abetting if, and only if, the one who commits the act knows of the defendant's presence and the intent to assist in that offense. "Complicity may arise on the spur of the moment. There need not be a plan contemplated and agreed upon in advance of the offense. However, there must be a specific intent to promote, aid or assist the principal in the commission of that offense. And, of course, the defendant's mere presence without more would not be sufficient. "In order to convict the defendant of a capital murder under this principle, the State must not only prove ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Duncan v. State
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.