466 So. 2d 1026 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2010
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 Mincey v. Arizona · Thompson v. Louisiana · 358 So. 2d 1040 - Bankston v. State · DeArman v. State · McGuff 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.
“"[I]n a murder prosecution it is not permissible for a witness, including a medical expert, to draw conclusions for the jury as to the relative positions of the parties at the time of the shooting from a mere examination of the wounds. It is not competent for a witness, expert or nonexpert, to draw inferences for the jury from the slant or angle of the wound as to the relative positions of the combatants when the fatal shot was fired. 'This would be invasive of the province of the jury and a matter of which they would be quite as competent to judge as the witness, having been given a description of the wound.' Mathis v. State , 15 Ala. App. 245 , 248 , 73 So. 122 , 124 (1916). "However, a properly qualified expert may testify to the 'path of flight' or trajectory of the bullet, Wilbanks v. State , 42 Ala. App. 39 , 151 So.2d 741 , cert. denied, 275 Ala. 701 , 151 So.2d 744 (1963). He may testify to the slant or angle of the gunshot wound and describe its character. Woods v. State , 54 Ala. App. 591 , 310 So.2d 891 (1975); Mathis v. State , supra. An expert may testify about the direction from which the bullet was fired or the blow was struck, Blackmon v. State , 246 Ala. 675 , 680 , 22 So.2d 29 (1945), Richardson v. State , 37 Ala. App. 194 , 65 So.2d 715 (1953), and may state the distance between the deceased and the barrel of the weapon at the time the fatal shot was fired. Straughn v. State , 270 Ala. 229 , 121 So.2d 883 (1960)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The trial judge was in a better position to resolve this conflict in the evidence and determine the facts surrounding the search and his determination will not be disturbed on this appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`In Palmer v. State , 401 So.2d 266 , 268 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), the court held, "[W]here ample evidence, even though conflicting, exists from which the trial judge could conclude that the appellant was not intoxicated to the extent of mania, the admission of a confession for a jury's consideration is not an abuse of discretion." In further regard to contradictory evidence at a voluntariness hearing, the court in Snider v. State , 422 So.2d 807 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982), held that when conflicting evidence is presented great weight will be given to the trial court's determination of the issue.'" (Citations omitted.) Id. at 1029.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.