476 So. 2d 116 - Lawson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 2009
14 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 Mayo v. United States · White v. State · Kutler v. United States · Ferguson Reorganized School District R-2 v. United States · 435 So. 2d 158 - Smith 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although an accidental killing may support a conviction for negligent homicide, Ex parte Weems , 463 So.2d 170 (Ala. 1984), '[a] killing is not accidental when the act causing death is done intentionally.' Phelps v. State , 435 So.2d 158 , 165 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“conduct excludes the possibility of negligent or inadvertent risk creation”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“" 'The prosecution's opening statement to the jury on what it expects to prove should be confined to statements based on facts admissible in evidence. Counsel, however, is to be allowed considerable latitude in presenting to the jury in his opening statement what he expects the evidence to show.' White v. State , 294 Ala. 265 , 270 , 314 So.2d 857 , cert. denied, White v. Alabama , 423 U.S. 951 , 96 S.Ct. 373 , 46 L.Ed.2d 288 (1975). ' "Counsel must restrict his opening statement to the issues of the case, and to the theory of the case as fixed by the pleadings, and although it is ground for reversal for him to call attention to collateral matters calculated to prejudice the jury, the fact that statements proper in themselves might also produce other collateral consequences harmful to the opposite party does not, if made in good faith, make the statements improper." * * * "Counsel, of course, may, in a reasonable way, outline what he expects to prove, unless it is manifest that such proof would be incompetent, or the offer or statement is made for the purpose of improperly influencing the jury." ' Daniels v. State , 243 Ala. 675 , 679 , 11 So.2d 756 , cert. denied, Daniels v. Alabama , 319 U.S. 755 , 63 S.Ct. 1168 , 87 L.Ed [1708] (1943). ' "Counsel has no right, in his opening statement, to rehearse before the jury facts which he is not in a condition to prove." ' Handley v. State , 214 Ala. 172 , 174 , 106 So. 692 (1925). '[I]t is not contemplated that by the abuse of this ”
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.