473 So. 2d 618 - Spellman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 2008
18 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 Roan v. Smith · United States v. Spletzer · 440 So. 2d 1227 - Ward v. State · 383 So. 2d 158 - Valley Min. Corp., Inc. v. Metro Bank · 423 So. 2d 1382 - Hinds 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is generally recognized in Alabama and elsewhere that the trial court may exclude evidence, even though it is relevant, *Page 1202 when it would serve comparatively little or no purpose except to arouse the passion, prejudice, or sympathy of the jury. . . . Whether such evidence should be excluded because of its prejudicial nature is largely within the discretion of the trial court. . . . The trial court is afforded broad discretion in its determination of the admissibility of evidence and this determination will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse. . . . The primary aim of the prejudice rule is to prevent jury misdecision."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“it would serve comparatively little or no *Page 548 purpose except to arouse the passion, prejudice, or sympathy of the jury,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Even if the evidence in question is material and relevant, as the State contends, the probative value of the evidence is clearly outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice. See United States v. Spletzer, 535 F.2d 950 (5th Cir.1976). The evidence was of relatively small or indefinite probative value and should have been excluded.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Popwell 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.