45 Ala. App. 33 - LaBryer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently June 2005 · most notably 265 Pa. Super. 194 - Commonwealth v. Stanley (1979), 475 So. 2d 609 - Ex Parte Bell (1985)
38 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 Mapp v. Ohio · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden · Sorrell v. State · Ross v. State · 15 Ala. App. 213 - Horn 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Defendant's Requested Charge No. 23. Members of the Jury, I charge you that if you are convinced that Michael Joe Hubbard was a participant in the alleged charges in the indictment, then he would be an accomplice and you could not convict the defendant unless the State has corroborated the evidence." "Defendant's Requested Charge No. 24. Members of the Jury, the Court charges that Randy Cole cannot be convicted upon the testimony of Michael Joe Hubbard unless corroborated by testimony of witnesses as to material elements of the offense, and that unless you believe the testimony of the State's witnesses beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty." "Defendant's Requested Charge No. 25. Members of the Jury, the Court charges *Page 613 that Randy Cole cannot be convicted upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses connecting the defendant with the commission of the offense which he is charged, and unless you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe Austin, Jr., and Carol Joiner have testified truthfully in this case, you cannot find the defendant guilty." "Defendant's Requested Charge No. 26. Members of the Jury, a mere recitation of the details of the crime is insufficient to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice if it fails to connect the accused with the offense." "Defendant's Requested Charge No. 27. Members of the Jury, I charge you that if you believe that Michael Joe Hubbard ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.”
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.