412 So. 2d 1262 - Nilson 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. “"`In our opinion, when a defendant through his own counsel, freely admits his conviction of a crime, unless he qualifies his admission, he admits all of the ingredients needed to prove the conviction of the crime... `... `By his act of admitting the prior conviction, we think the defendant relieved the State from the burden of proving any of the matters that ordinarily would attend establishing the prior conviction. `... `Were it otherwise, an admission of prior conviction, made with undisclosed qualifications, would result in the nullification of the admission. The action would be pointless, unless designed to ensnare the opposition, which proposition we do not entertain in this case. We think there is a difference between there being a deficiency in the required preliminary proof as a foundation for the introduction of a certified copy of a record of conviction, as where the record is silent as to the presence of legal counsel, and an admission by the defendant of the fact of his prior conviction. The admission would seem to us to supply all of the necessary requirements for this area of proof in the case.' Donahay, 287 Ala. (716) at 719-19, 255 So.2d 599 (emphasis added). `See also Douglas v. State, 406 So.2d 1051, 1052 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Douglas, 406 So.2d 1053 (Ala. 1981); Thompson v. State, 405 So.2d 717, 720 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Thompson, 405 So.2d 721 (Ala. 1981); Moseley v. State, 398 So.2d 357, 359 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex ”

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

2. “[W]hen a defendant, through his own counsel, freely admits his conviction of a crime, unless he qualifies his admission, he admits all of the ingredients needed to prove the conviction of the crime. . . . By his act of admitting the prior conviction, we think the defendant relieved the State from the burden of proving any of the matters that ordinarily would attend establishing the prior conviction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 439 So. 2d 762 - Watson v. State