456 So. 2d 1136 - Ex Parte Bryars’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably 519 So. 2d 565 - Musgrove v. State (1986), 527 So. 2d 777 - Thompson v. State (1988)
26 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 396 So. 2d 645 - Beck v. State · Harris v. State · Holland v. State · Hunter v. State · Fagan 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A statement offered for some other purpose other than to prove the truth of its factual assertion is not hearsay.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Pierce v. State · Edwards v. State“"Whether related in Court by the identifying witness or the observing witness, an identification statement is inadmissible hearsay when offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted — i.e. , the identity of the person who committed the act being litigated. The Alabama Rules of Evidence reject the federal rule under which any prior identification is exempted from hearsay and admissible as substantive proof of the matter asserted so long as the identifying witness testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement. It is only fair to acknowledge, however, that there is a line of pre-rules, Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals decisions which suggest that an identification statement is always admissible as nonhearsay if the identifying witness testifies and is subject to cross-examination regarding the statement. Such authority, however, was erroneous and, as a deviation from the course of traditional hearsay precedent, came ultimately to be corrected. Consequently, admission of an extrajudicial identification statement must circumvent a hearsay objection under either the theory that it is nonhearsay by definition or the rationale that it qualifies under a hearsay exception."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Forte v. State · Miller v. State“Viewed in its totality, there is simply no way to dismiss the inadmissible evidence ... as harmless or cumulative. The bulk of the state's testimony about the incident and about the alleged disagreement came not from eyewitness accounts but from hearsay statements.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Baker 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.