446 So. 2d 68 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[t]his Court in Seawright v. State, 479 So.2d 1362, 1368 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), ... stated: "`Prior to adoption of the present robbery statutes, there was no statutory robbery provision in this state and the common law prevailed. See Williams v. State, 48 Ala.App. 737 , 267 So.2d 526 (1972). "The criminal code definition of robbery has thus altered the common law definition. When robbery was made a statutory offense, the test for the sufficiency of a robbery indictment was changed. The indictment is judged by the statutory language and elements instead of the former common law elements." Smith v. State, 446 So.2d 68, 72 (Ala. Crim.App.1984).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 789 So. 2d 896 - Woods v. State · 469 So. 2d 1291 - Lewis v. State

2. “The evidence need not negate the most remote possibility of substitution, alteration, or tampering with the evidence, but rather must prove to a reasonable probability that the item is the same as, and not substantially different from, the object as it existed at the beginning of the chain.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 565 So. 2d 1197 - Suttle v. State · 505 So. 2d 1252 - Williams v. State

3. “As a general rule, an indictment is sufficient when it correctly follows the language of the statute provided the statute sets out with definiteness the elements of the offense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 805 So. 2d 733 - Dobyne v. State · 535 So. 2d 203 - Sandifer v. State