41 Ala. App. 339 - Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Fuller v. State, 269 Ala. 312 , 113 So.2d 153 (headnote 15), authorities are cited for the conclusion (1) that the solicitor’s metaphor of acquittal being a license for lawlessness was eradicable; and (2) that the trial judge’s instruction was ‘amply sufficient’ to remove the remarks from the consideration of the jury. “The state of the record here shows the defense objection sustained. The defendant perhaps is not required to move for a mistrial in the face of matter of ineradicable prejudice coming before a jury. “Pretermitting the need for such a motion (for mistrial) in such circumstances, we consider that under Jackson v. State, 260 Ala. 641 , 71 So.2d 825 , there is no reversible error in the absence of the question being put to the trial judge by an express ground of a motion for new trial. Neither of the two statements here complained of were set out in Davis’s motion for new trial. “By analogy to the reasoning in Burch v. State, supra, we hold the prejudice was cured by the trial judge’s instruction. We also consider alternatively that even were the effect not so cured the Jackson rule precludes our review.” 132 So.2d 265, at 266-267 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 42 Ala. App. 21 - Alday v. State