Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 431 So. 2d 574 - Trawick v. State

431 So. 2d 574 - Trawick v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably 472 So. 2d 1130 - Twilley v. State (1985), 597 So. 2d 734 - Owens v. State (1992)

53 state decisions

2501983199020002010decided

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 Espey v. State · 420 So. 2d 812 - Harris v. State · 358 So. 2d 782 - Van Antwerp v. State · 416 So. 2d 1083 - Walker v. State · Johnson 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “' "Evidence to be competent and admissible must be relevant. That is to say, evidence must tend to prove or disprove the issues before the jury. The determination of the relevancy or lack of relevancy of particular evidence rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial judge. It is, therefore, the duty of the trial judge to limit evidence to the points in issue so that the attention of *Page 557 the jury is not distracted, nor withdrawn from the primary issues, to be directed towards foreign matters or issues of questionable or doubtful relevancy. . . .”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"`The general rule is that improper argument of counsel is not a ground for a new trial or subject to review on appeal unless there is due objection by counsel or a motion to exclude, an adverse ruling thereon by the court, or a refusal of the trial court to make a ruling.'" (Emphasis added in Yates.)”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"It is well established in Alabama that cross-examination is not limited to matters brought out on direct examination, but extends to all matters within the issues of the case. Hughes v. State, 385 So.2d 1010 (Ala.Cr.App.1980); Braswell v. State, 371 So.2d 992 (Ala.Cr.App.1979); Ala.Code § 12-21-137 (1975). The privilege of cross-examination inures to the benefit of the State, in a criminal prosecution, just as to any other party. Bickerstaff v. State, 369 So.2d 315 (Ala.Cr. App.1979). The scope and extent of such are matters addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, whose ruling will not be disturbed absent a showing of gross abuse or substantial injury. McFerrin v. State, 339 So.2d 127 (Ala.Cr. App.1976); Roberts v. State, 338 So.2d 466 (Ala.Cr.App.1976)."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.