488 So. 2d 1386 - Hall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"According to the evidence presented by the State, the appellant's fingerprints were positioned in such a manner as to indicate that he was 'outside of the house entering into the house.' The window was approximately six feet from the ground; this fact precluded the possibility that the appellant could have had some 'casual contact' with the window from the outside. (Additionally, the appellant did not testify that he had touched the window from the outside.) Testimony presented at trial tended to show that: (1) the appellant was observed near the scene of the crime shortly before and shortly after the crime had been committed; (2) the appellant's fingerprints were found at the 'point of entry' of the burglarized home; (3) the appellant's fingerprints were positioned in such a manner as to indicate that he was entering the home at the time the prints were made; and (4) the appellant's witnesses merely testified that he was inside the bedroom at some point."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 673 So. 2d 803 - Hale v. State

2. “"In Williams , the sole link between the accused and the crime was the presence of his fingerprints on certain packages of film. According to the evidence presented at trial in Williams , others had access to the film and thus the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction. In [ Hall ], however, there was no reasonable explanation for the fact that the appellant's fingerprints indicated that he was entering the house from the outside of the window. The only reasonable inference from the evidence presented at trial was that the appellant actually committed the crime."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 673 So. 2d 803 - Hale v. State

3. “Under the facts presented in this case, the 'illegal and unauthorized entry' by the appellant into Ms. Miller's home was the only 'reasonable explanation' for the presence and position of the appellant's fingerprints. Davis v. State , 418 So.2d 959 , 961 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 673 So. 2d 803 - Hale v. State