461 So. 2d 5 - Ex Parte Bates’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defendant who alleges that a witness is an accomplice has the burden of so proving, unless the evidence presented by the prosecution shows without dispute that the witness is an accomplice.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Connolly v. State · Steele v. State

2. “'The test for determining whether a witness is an accomplice is whether he or she could have been indicted and convicted for the offense charged, either as principal or accessory.' Ex parte Dial , 387 So.2d 879 , 881 (Ala. 1980), quoting Russell v. State , 365 So.2d 343 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978). See also Ex parte Bates , 461 So.2d 5 ,6 (Ala. 1984); Brownlee, supra , 545 So.2d at 160 ; Jacks, supra , 364 So.2d at 401 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bone v. State · Hasberry v. State

3. “' "[W]hen intent is one of the required constituent elements [of a crime], the co-conspirator, or accomplice, to authorize his conviction, must himself have entertained the intent, or must have known that the actor, whom he was encouraging, aiding, or abetting, entertained it. Without this individual intent, or personal knowledge, it can not be affirmed that he aided or abetted in the crime charged. . . .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 545 So. 2d 151 - Brownlee v. State · 555 So. 2d 799 - Lauderdale v. State