405 So. 2d 717 - Thompson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`Such an announcement precludes our review of the alleged error.' Thompson v. State , 405 So.2d 717 , 719-20 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Thompson , 405 So.2d 721 (Ala. 1981).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 456 So. 2d 1152 - Richardson v. State · 497 So. 2d 208 - Isom v. State

2. “"Ordinarily, the character or reputation of the deceased in a murder trial is not involved as an issue, and proof relative thereto is generally inadmissible.... Such a rule of law is weighed in the consideration that the law does not distinguish between the killing of an evil person and that of a saintly person.... However, evidence of the character or reputation of the deceased for turbulence, violence and bloodthirstiness should be received when it illustrates or explains words or acts of the deceased at the time of the killing or to show that the killing was in self defense.... The rationale of the rule allowing such evidence is that words spoken or actions taken by a person with a reputation for turbulence, violence, and bloodthirstiness may convey a meaning and intent different from the same words and actions of someone else. Seemingly innocent actions of the deceased may take on a different significance when considered in the light of his or her character." "It is well understood that evidence of the deceased's turbulent, violent, and blood-thirsty character is not competent absent some evidence tending to show that the killing was in self defense; that is, some overt act or hostile demonstration on the part of the deceased.... Such evidence is not available to the defendant if he or she is the aggressor.... However, on all doubtful questions of who is the aggressor, the bad character of the deceased for turbulence and violence should be admitted.... When the evidence o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Laffity v. State

3. “(Citations omitted). Evidence of the victim's bad general reputation for peace and quiet, violence, or like trait is admissible only if the evidence before the trial court at the time such an offer is made tends to establish that the accused acted in self-defense. Thompson v. State, 405 So.2d 717 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 405 So.2d 721 (Ala.1981); Huffman v. State, 360 So.2d 1038 (Ala.Cr.App.1977), aff'd, 360 So.2d 1045 (Ala.1978). However, in Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 63.01(3) (3rd ed. 1977), we find the following:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Laffity v. State