487 So. 2d 975 - Timmons v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably 723 So. 2d 742 - Burgess v. State (1997), Davis v. State (1998)
25 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Aaron v. State · 17 Ala. App. 674 - Dennison v. State · Garrett v. State · Rollings 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"'A trial judge may "pose questions to a witness for the purpose of clarifying the issues for the jury's consideration and to aid in the orderly conduct of the trial process." Richardson v. State , 403 So.2d 297 (Ala. 1981). "The trial judge has the right to propound such questions to witnesses as may be necessary to elicit certain facts, . . .; and it not only is the court's prerogative to so act, but its duty, if the court deems it necessary to elicit proper evidence bearing on the issues." Rice v. Hill , 278 Ala. 342 , 343 , 178 So.2d 168 , 169 (1965) (citations omitted). "[W]ith certain exceptions, no rule of law exists which limits the power of a judge in a criminal trial to interrogate a witness during his examination. He may ask any question which either the state or the accused had the right to ask, but which has been omitted, if the answer may be relevant." Holmes v. State , 22 Ala. App. 373 , 115 So. 849 (1928). "The unquestioned province of the court — in fact, the solemn and sacred duty of a trial judge — is the development and establishment of the truth, and in this connection it is always permissible for the court, and if it appears necessary for him to do so it is his duty, to propound to witnesses such questions as it is deemed necessary to elicit any”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Brady [ v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963),] presupposes the actual existence of evidence favorable to the accused and material either to guilt or punishment. Bailey v. State , 421 So.2d 1364 , 1369 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). There must be some showing that such exculpatory and influential evidence actually exists before a constitutional violation of the Brady rule may be found. Bailey , 421 So.2d at 1368-69 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"`A motion for discovery is not a mere "fishing expedition." ... The accused is simply not entitled to pursue a "scatter gun" approach in his motion to produce.' Perry v. State, 371 So.2d 969, 970 (Ala.Cr. App.), cert. denied, 371 So.2d 971 (Ala. 1979) (citations omitted). Brady `did not envision the type "fishing expedition" requested by appellant.' Giddens v. State, 333 So.2d 615, 618 (Ala.Cr.App.1976)."”
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.