485 So. 2d 398 - Bright v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The coconspirators' exception [to the rule of evidence excluding hearsay statements] may be simply stated: where two or more persons are alleged to have conspired to commit a crime or cause injury to another, any statement made by one, pursuant to or in furtherance of the conspiratorial purpose, is admissible in evidence against any other member of the conspiracy. "In order for the extrajudicial statement of a coconspirator to qualify under the coconspirators' exception, three distinct conditions must be met. First, the statement must have been made in furtherance of the conspiracy. Second, the statement must have been made during the pendency of the conspiracy. Finally, . . . the existence of the conspiracy must be shown by independent evidence. "Why the necessity of independent evidence of the conspiracy? As is the case with the basis for the exclusion of hearsay evidence in general, the reason for requiring independent evidence of conspiracy would seem to lie in the fact that hearsay testimony as to the extrajudicial statements of a coconspirator is not subject to the tests which can ordinarily be applied for the ascertainment of its truth. Thus, although variously expressed, the underlying rationale of the requirement of independent evidence is the express or implied fear that a defendant might otherwise be convicted, or held liable in damages, solely on the basis of evidence which he has no opportunity to impeach or refute.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Deutcsh v. State · 539 So. 2d 416 - Moore v. State

2. “'This proof of the existence of the conspiracy must be independent of the statements of the defendant's co-conspirators. . . . The initial existence of a conspiracy may not be proved by the statements of the co-conspirators.' Ingle v. State , 415 So.2d 1225 , 1228-29 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). "Although the existence of a conspiracy may be and usually is shown through circumstantial evidence, Muller v. State , 44 Ala. App. 637 , 642 , 218 So.2d 698 , 703 (1968), cert. denied, 283 Ala. 717 , 218 So.2d 704 (1969), ' "conspiracies cannot be established by a mere suspicion,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Deutcsh v. State · 539 So. 2d 416 - Moore v. State

3. “before a co-conspirator's statement or act will be admissible against the accused, proof must be made of the conspiracy. C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence , § 195.03(2) (3d ed. 1977).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 726 So. 2d 756 - Radford v. State · 539 So. 2d 416 - Moore v. State