424 So. 2d 715 - Charles v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “as allowed by Jenkins v. State , 46 Ala. App. 719 , 248 So.2d 758 (1971). The determination of whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert is largely within the sound discretion of the trial court. Charles v. State , 424 So.2d 715 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). Further,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 667 So. 2d 105 - Johnson v. State · 470 So. 2d 1343 - Fleming v. State

2. ““Whether a witness is shown to possess the requisite qualifications to be called an expert is a preliminary question largely within the discretion of the trial court. The criterion for admission of expert testimony is that the witness, by study, practice, experience or observation as to the particular subject, has acquired a knowledge beyond that of an ordinary witness. “Whether a particular witness is an expert is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial court, and this court will not disturb that judgment unless there has been an abuse of that discretion.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 579 So. 2d 60 - Foster v. State

3. “`the testimony of the arresting officer . . . is of itself sufficient to present a factual issue as to the intoxication of defendant and justifies the denial of defendant's motion to exclude the evidence made at the conclusion of the State's evidence.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 755 So. 2d 66 - Mester v. State