433 So. 2d 1190 - Wicker v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably 494 So. 2d 124 - Magwood v. State (1985), Loggins v. State (2000)
1 federal appellate · 32 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 United States v. Mitchell · 368 So. 2d 871 - Cumbo v. State · 363 So. 2d 1020 - Thomas v. State · Day v. State · 49 Ala. App. 233 - Thigpen 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The determination of the relevancy of a particular item of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge and this court will not reverse unless that discretion has been grossly abused.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`In reviewing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, this court must view that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The test to be applied is whether the jury might reasonably find that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; not whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but guilt, but whether a jury might reasonably so conclude.' (Citations omitted). Cumbo v. State , 368 So.2d 871 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979). "Whether there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt is a question for the jury and this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Thomas v. State , 363 So.2d 1020 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978). `This court will not disturb a verdict of conviction on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence, "unless, allowing all reasonable presumptions for its correctness, the preponderance of the evidence against the verdict is so decided as to clearly convince this court that is was wrong and unjust.'"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“that there had been an effort to secure the presence of the witness until the day of the trial.”
1 later decision 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.