462 So. 2d 781 - Prantl v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably 555 So. 2d 818 - Johnson v. State (1989), Zumbado v. State (1993)
30 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 Burks v. United States · 363 So. 2d 1020 - Thomas v. State · Watkins v. State · Ex Parte State Ex Rel. Atty. Gen. · 423 So. 2d 348 - Sanders 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'The weight of the evidence is clearly a different matter from the sufficiency of the evidence. The sufficiency of the evidence concerns the question of whether, "viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, [a] rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The proper standard for review is whether there existed legal evidence before the jury, at the time the motion to exclude was made, from which the jury could, by fair inference, have found defendant guilty. In applying this standard, this court will not assume the task of determining the probative force and weight of the evidence, but will only determine if legal evidence was presented from which the jury, by fair inference, could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Thomas [v. State, 363 So.2d 1020, 1022 (Ala.Cr.App.1978)]; Daniels v. State, 343 So.2d 566 (Ala.Crim.App.1977).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Popwell v. State““The double jeopardy clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and of the Alabama Constitution preclude a second trial once a reviewing court has found the evidence presented at trial insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty. The prosecution is not afforded another opportunity to supply the evidence which it failed to muster in the first trial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Williams 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.