466 So. 2d 167 - Bell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2010 · most notably 545 So. 2d 129 - Fortenberry v. State (1988), 545 So. 2d 151 - Brownlee v. State (1988)
34 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 Thompson v. United States · Seals v. State · Aaron v. State · Yelton v. State · Watson 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Testimony which may be apparently illegal upon admission may be rendered prejudicially innocuous by subsequent or prior lawful testimony to the same effect or from which the same facts can be inferred. Bell v. State , 466 So.2d 167 , 174 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985)."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Although one may not generally impeach his own witness, where a party is put to a disadvantage by unexpected answers, a party may, for purposes of showing surprise or for refreshing the witness's recollection, ask his witness if he had not made prior statements contrary to his instant testimony. This is permissible, after proper predicate, even though its incidental effect is to impeach the witness's testimony. Miller v. State , 431 So.2d 586 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Isbell v. State , 329 So.2d 133 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 295 Ala. 407 , 329 So.2d 140 (1976); Edwards v. State , 51 Ala. App. 433 , 286 So.2d 308 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 291 Ala. 777 , 286 So.2d 313 (1973), C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence , § 165.01(7) (3d ed. 1977). Under the theory of surprise, the prosecution may elicit from a witness testimony that he in fact made prior contradictory statements, and through questioning may further elicit from the witness the contents of prior statements."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A party may always correct or contradict the testimony of his own witness, regardless of the restrictions or limitations as to his impeachment of such witness, and such contradiction may be made without a foundation therefor or a showing of surprise. The testimony of one witness contradicting another is not an impeachment of the witness so contradicted.”
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.