DeBruce v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 2011
12 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 Cobern v. State · State v. Tomanelli · People v. Irrizari · 31 Ala. App. 571 - Mullins v. State · 386 So. 2d 1180 - Tice 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The only predicate necessary for the receipt of opinion testimony of value is that the witness has had an opportunity to form a correct opinion of the value of the stolen property. State v. Johnson , 268 Ala. 11 , 13 , 104 So.2d 915 (1958); Tice v. State , 386 So.2d 1180 , 1186 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Tice , 386 So.2d 1187 (Ala. 1980); Alabama Code 1975, § 12-21-114 . For purposes of offenses involving theft, 'value' is defined as '(t)he market value of the property at the time and place of the criminal act.' Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-8-1 (14)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The record does not indicate that the store detective was qualified to testify of her own personal knowledge as to the value of the stolen merchandise. Though she professed that part of her job was to know the price of the more expensive pilferageable [s*c] goods, she admitted that she was not involved in the pricing of the merchandise, had no access to wholesale or retail price lists, and would not know if the goods were mis-marked. As such, she was not qualified to testify concerning the value of goods as would a shop owner or manager.... Her knowledge was gained exclusively from the price tags on the merchandise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The defendant’s claim that she was denied her right to confrontation is also groundless, since the admissibility of the price tags does not prevent her from presenting rebutting evidence on the issue of value.... The defendant had the right to contend that the price tags did not necessarily reflect the market value of the goods, but it would be incumbent upon her to present evidence to support this conten-tion_ The defendant’s failure to introduce evidence on this issue defeats her claim that she was denied her right of confrontation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Schmidt
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.