409 So. 2d 886 - Ware v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

cited by 37 later decisions

states following

December 2010

most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably 420 So. 2d 812 - Harris v. State (1982), Arthur v. State (1996)

37 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 Simuel v. United States · Miller v. State · Skumro v. State · 34 Ala. App. 137 - De Graaf v. State · 364 So. 2d 397 - Jacks 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“`Corroborative evidence need not directly confirm any particular fact nor go to every material fact stated by the accomplice. Bridges v. State , 52 Ala. App. 546 , 295 So.2d 266 (1974); Dykes v. State , 30 Ala. App. 129 , 1 So.2d 754 (1941). Corroborative evidence need not directly connect the accused with the offense but need only tend to do so. . . . In certain instances, association with the accomplice tending to show the accused's proximity, chronologically and geographically, to the alleged offense may furnish sufficient corroboration.'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Arthur v. State · Scott v. State
“Corroborate means to strengthen, to make stronger; to strengthen, not the proof of any particular fact to which the witness has testified, but to strengthen the probative, criminating force of his testimony.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Arthur v. State · 814 So. 2d 925 - Ferguson v. State
“'. . . " 'Additionally, sufficient corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice may be furnished by a tacit admission by the accused, by the suspicious conduct of the *Page 58 accused, and the association of the accused with the accomplice, or by the defendant's proximity and opportunity to commit the crime. Cheatwood v. State , 22 Ala. App. 165 , 113 So. 482 , cert. denied, 216 Ala. 692 , 113 So. 915 (1927); 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 812(4).' 'In determining the sufficiency of corrobative evidence testimony the entire conduct of an accused within reasonable time limits of the date of the offense may be examined.' Fuller v. State , 34 Ala. App. 211 , 215 , 39 So.2d 24 , 27 [cert. denied.] 252 Ala. 20 , 39 So.2d 29 (1949). An accused's consciousness of guilt as shown by the evidence may be corroborative. Fuller , 34 Ala. App. 215 , 39 So.2d 24 . 364 So.2d at 404 , 405 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Arthur v. State · 500 So. 2d 1273 - Hodges 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.