42 So. 3d 162 - Davis 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 deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the trial court, the evidence must be reviewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Cumbo v. State, 368 So.2d 871 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 877 (Ala.1979). Conflicting evidence presents a jury question not subject to review on appeal, provided the state’s evidence establishes a prima facie case. Gunn v. State, 387 So.2d 280 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 387 So.2d 283 (Ala.1980). The trial court’s denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal must be reviewed by determining whether there existed legal evidence before the jury, at the time the motion was made, from which the jury by fair inference could have found the appellant guilty. Thomas v. State, 363 So.2d 1020 (Ala.Cr.App.1978). In applying this standard, the appellate court will determine only if legal evidence was presented from which the jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Willis v. State, 447 So.2d 199 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); Thomas v. State. When the evidence raises questions of fact for the jury and such evidence, if believed, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, the denial of a motion for a judgment of - acquittal by the trial court does not constitute error. Young v. State, 283 Ala. 676 , 220 So.2d 843 (1969); Willis v. State.””

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

2. “"It is well settled that " '[t]he issue of the sufficiency of the evidence is preserved for review by a defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal that is entered at the end of the state's case, at the close of the evidence, see [Ala. R. Crim. P.] 20.1(a), or after the verdict is entered, see [Ala. R. Crim. P.] 20.3. The motion must state the ground that the state failed to prove a prima facie case [or similar language]. See, e.g., Ex parte Maxwell , 439 So.2d 715 (Ala. 1983). A defendant may also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence when moving for a new trial under [Ala. Crim. P.] 24.1 or when moving for an arrest of judgment under [Ala. R. Crim. P.] 24.2. [Ala. R. Crim. P.] 20.3(c) ; see Pearson[ v. State] , 601 So.2d [1119] , 1123-24 [ (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) ] ; Prather v. City of Hoover , 585 So.2d 257 , 258 n.1 (Ala. Cr. App. 1991).' " Zumbado v. State , 615 So.2d [1223,] 1241 [ (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) ]. Further, " '[t]he sufficiency of the evidence is subject to appellate review only where the defendant challenges the State's lack of evidence by either a motion to exclude, a motion for judgment of acquittal, or a motion for a new trial. Slaughter v. State , 424 So.2d 1365 (Ala. Cr. App. 1982) ; see Johnson v. State , 500 So.2d 69 (Ala. Cr. App. 1986). ...' "”

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

3. ““As previously noted, a kidnapping is complete when a victim is abducted with the intent to secrete the victim or deadly force is used or the perpetrator threatens to use such force. Commentary, § 13A-6-43, Ala.Code 1975. ‘The prime ingredient is the taking or detaining of a person against his will and without authority of law.’ Id. “Because multiple punishments were imposed under separate subsections of § 13A-6-43, Ala.Code 1975, ‘when the actions described in each of those subsections [were] based on the same conduct of the accused against the same victim,’ double-jeopardy principles were violated. Egbuonu v. State, 993 So.2d 35, 43 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). See also Ex parte Robey, 920 So.2d 1069, 1070 (Ala.2004); and Ex parte Rice, 766 So.2d 143, 148 (Ala.1999).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 62 So. 3d 1071 - Roberts v. State