48 Ala. App. 341 - Pratt v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 1993
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 Benton v. Maryland · United States v. Jorn · Gori v. United States · Moore-Handley Hardware Co. v. Williams · Mitchell 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.
“in any prosecution for felony, whether capital or non-capital.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Prince v. State · Cooper v. State““In Oliver v. State, 234 Ala. 460 , 175 So. 305 , our Supreme Court spoke directly to this question: “ ‘The acquittal of a defendant because of variance does not prevent trial on a new indictment conforming to the case made by the evidence. The accused is held to have never been in jeopardy, since the crime charged is not the same in the sense that it is not sustainable by the same proof, as in the former indictment. 16 C.J. p. 243, § 380; Martha v. State, 26 Ala. 72 . “ ‘This principle is recognized in our statute, Code § 4551, providing that, where no conviction can be had because of a variance, the defendant not consenting to an amendment, the prosecution may be dismissed before the jury retires, as to any count in the indictment to which the variance applies, and another indictment ordered.’ “And in Ex parte Shirley, 39 Ala.App. 634 , 106 So.2d 671 , cert. den. 268 Ala. 696 , 106 So.2d 674 , we find the rule thus stated: “ ‘. . . Unquestionably the trial judge is authorized to enter a nol pros and order a new indictment where defendant will not consent to an amendment offered to meet a variance. Code, Title 15, Section 254; Cunningham v. State, 117 Ala. 59 , 23 So. 693 .’ See also Wright v. State, 40 Ala.App. 683 , 122 So.2d 555 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Moore v. State“[i]t [was] well settled that where it appear[ed] in the record that the trial court, without the defendant's consent, allow[ed] the jury to separate . . ., such create[d] prima facially a cause for reversal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Prince 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.