428 So. 2d 167 - Robinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A defendant does not have the right to a mental examination whenever he requests one. Rather, this is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge, with the defendant bearing the burden on a motion for a competency investigation of persuading the court that a reasonable and bona fide doubt exists as to the defendant’s mental competency. Miles v. State, 408 So.2d 158 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), cert. denied, 408 So.2d 163 (Ala.1982).””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gray v. State · 560 So. 2d 1100 - Jackson v. State

2. ““[I]t has long been held that murder and robbery may properly be joined in the same indictment under separate counts, as being of the same family or general nature of offenses. Smelcher v. State, 38 Ala.App. 326 , 33 So.2d 380 (1947); Sanders v. State, 278 Ala. 453 , 179 So.2d 35 (1965). As well, evidence of both offenses was properly admitted since the murder and robbery constituted one criminal transaction made up of two chronologically close criminal acts. Sanders, supra. “We are mindful of the fundamental principle that a single crime may not be subdivided into multiple offenses, nor a series of charges based on the same act. Baldwin v. State, 47 Ala.App. 136 , 251 So.2d 633 (1971); Crosswhite v. State, 31 Ala.App. 181 , 13 So.2d 693 (1943). Although combined in one transaction, appellant clearly committed two separate and distinct criminal acts, bearing two criminal intents, i.e., the intent to rob and the intent to kill. Colston v. State, 350 So.2d 337 (Ala.1977); Yelton v. State, 56 Ala.App. 272 , 321 So.2d 234 , cert. denied, 294 Ala. 745 , 321 So.2d 237 (1975). Appellant’s acts, the shooting and the robbery, constituted two criminal offenses or actions. It is legally possible to try and convict a defendant for two or more offenses at one trial where the indictment properly joins several offenses depending upon separate criminal acts or actions. Brooms v. State, 197 Ala. 419 , 73 So. 35 (1916). [[Image here]] “It is within the province of the jury to return a specific”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 65 So. 3d 971 - Phillips v. State

3. ““We are mindful of the fundamental principle that a single crime may not be subdivided into multiple offenses, nor a series of charges based on the same act.... Although combined in one trans action, appellant clearly committed two separate and distinct criminal acts, bearing two criminal intents, i.e., the intent to rob and the intent to kill. Colston v. State, 350 So.2d 337 (Ala.1977); Yelton v. State, 56 Ala.App. 272 , 321 So.2d 234 , cert. denied, 294 Ala. 745 , 321 So.2d 237 (1975). Appellant’s acts, the shooting and the robbery, constituted two criminal offenses or actions. It is legally possible to try and convict a defendant for two or more offenses at one trial where the indictment properly joins several offenses depending upon separate criminal acts or actions. Brooms v. State, 197 Ala. 419 , 73 So. 35 (1916). [[Image here]] “It is within the province of the jury to return a specific verdict as to each count of an indictment_ Where there is evidence of separate and distinct acts constituting separate criminal offenses, separate convictions and sentences may be had under multiple counts of an indictment. Boatner v. State, 8 Ala.App. 361 , 63 So. 33 (1913); see Wildman v. State, 42 Ala.App. 357 , 165 So.2d 396 (1963), cert. denied, 276 Ala. 708 , 165 So.2d 403 (1964).””

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