Shaneyfelt v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““To be part of the res gestae statements must be impelled by the main transaction, and so spontaneously expressed as to be considered a part thereof. The main transaction must be the sole cause of the statement. The fact that Mrs. Shaneyfelt’s statement was not made for some 10 to 15 minutes after the time of her injury in itself casts some doubt on the admissibility of the statement because of the lapse of time. However, where a statement is made in response to a question, it cannot be said to originate solely from and to be impelled by the main transaction, for the question is the thing that originates the statement, and not the main transaction. Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. Pearson, 97 Ala. 211 , 12 So. 176 ; Richmond & Danville Railroad Co. v. Hammond, 93 Ala. 181 , 9 So. 577 ; Shiflett v. State, 38 Ala.App. 662 , 93 So.2d 523 . Thus Mrs. Shaneyfelt’s statement as related by the witness Beauchamp, cannot be considered as admissible as a part of the res gestae and thereby removed from the hearsay rule which would ordinarily prevent its admission. The court therefore erred in its ruling in the premises. “It cannot be denied that the admission of this evidence was harmful to the appellant. * * *” [Italics added.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 54 Ala. App. 363 - Guntharp v. State