Hanners v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is true, as the defendant argues, that mere proof that he smelled of alcohol will not sustain a conviction for driving under the influence. "`Proof of the drinking of intoxicating liquor, or that the defendant's breath smelled of liquor, is not in itself sufficient to show that the defendant was intoxicated or under the influence of intoxicating liquor. However, where the charge is driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, it is not necessary that the prosecution show that the defendant was in a drunken stupor. And where there is evidence in the record from which the jury may infer that the defendant drove a motor vehicle upon a public way while intoxicated or under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a conviction will not be disturbed on appeal, even though there is also evidence in the record to the contrary.' 7A Am.Jur.2d, supra, at § 375. "Rainey v. State , 31 Ala. App. 66 , 67 , 12 So.2d 106 (1943) (`The statement that he was "drinking" does not necessarily establish that he was intoxicated.'). Intoxication is not `established by the mere fact that accused drank intoxicating liquor or had an odor of liquor on his breath, in the absence of some proof showing that it produced in him some manifestation of intoxication.' 61A C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 633 (7) (1970)." Hanners v. State , 461 So.2d 43 , 45-46 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984) (Bowen, P.J., concurring).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 472 So. 2d 694 - Boyd v. City of Montgomery

2. “[W]hen, therefore, an accident occurs on a public road in which a person is killed by being run over by an automobile, and it is shown that the driver has been drinking, it becomes a question for the jury to say, from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the homicide, whether or not the driver at the time of the accident was under the influence of liquor, and, if so, was that condition the proximate cause of the homicide”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lawrence v. State

3. “"When a person is under the influence of alcohol, his ability to drive is impaired and his is incapable of driving safely. The person's degree of intoxication is irrelevant. If a person is intoxicated to any degree, his driving capacity is diminished and he is a danger to others who may travel over the public highways. Evans v. State , 389 So.2d 567 (Ala.Crim.App. 1980)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 520 So. 2d 182 - Smoot v. State