428 So. 2d 174 - Spears v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 2000
19 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · Henderson v. Morgan · Twyman v. State · Whitson v. State · 407 So. 2d 169 - Showers v. State
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`An accused cannot by his own voluntary conduct invite error and then seek to profit thereby. It would be a sad commentary upon the vitality of the judicial process if an accused could render it impotent by his own choice.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Appellant correctly relies on Prothro v. State, 370 So.2d 740 (Ala.Cr.App.1979), and Youngblood v. State, 372 So.2d 34 (Ala.Cr.App.1979), for the proposition that our law requires participation of a jury in both the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case. However, we find that Prothro and Youngblood are not controlling here in view of the fact that appellant’s guilty plea waives all nonjurisdic-tional defects, including the defect of which appellant complains. See Graham v. State, 403 So.2d 275 (Ala.Cr.App.1980), and Lane v. State, 412 So.2d 292 (Ala.1982), and authorities cited therein. The Lane decision makes it abundantly clear that all nonjurisdictional defects are waived by a voluntary guilty plea in a capital case wherein the death penalty is not imposed.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Norris v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.