49 Ala. App. 259 - Haggler v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
169 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 169 later decisions — most recently October 2009 · most notably 55 Ala. App. 88 - Bass v. State (1975), 416 So. 2d 1083 - Walker v. State (1982)
169 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 Kirby v. Illinois · Willcutt v. State · 21 Ala. App. 391 - Lambert v. State · 48 Ala. App. 334 - White v. State · 21 Ala. App. 373 - Bolton 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 169 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Where there is legal evidence from which the jury can by fair inference find the defendant guilty, this Court has no right to disturb the verdict. Whether there is such evidence is a question of law, its weight and probative value are for the jury. Haggler v. State , 49 Ala. App. 259 , 270 So.2d 690 ; Price v. State , 53 Ala. App. 465 , 301 So.2d 230 ; Hawkins v. State , 53 Ala. App. 89 , 297 So.2d 813 ; Moore v. State , 52 Ala. App. 394 , 293 So.2d 309 ."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““The scintilla rule does not apply in criminal cases. There must be substantial evidence tending to prove all the elements of the charge. Ex parte Grimmett, 228 Ala. 1 , 152 So. 263 . The burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime has been committed and that the defendant was the person who committed it. Jarrell v. State, 251 Ala. 50 , 36 So.2d 336 . The weight of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence, where susceptible of more than one rational conclusion, are for the jury alone. Byrd v. State, 213 Ala. 333 , 104 So. 830 . “We cannot say in the instant case that there was not enough evidence to allow the jury, to draw the inference that the defendant was the person who committed this robbery. The defendant presented a strong case in support of his alibi. The testimony of his witnesses was in direct conflict with the testimony of the State’s witness. Yet the State’s witness made a positive identification of defendant as the person who robbed and burned him. The State presented substantial evidence and the jury had before it an adequate basis for drawing inferences and conclusions against the defendant. It is for the jury, not the trial court or this court, to find the facts and to determine guilt or innocence. The State presented sufficient evidence upon which the jury could base its verdict.””
2 later decisions 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.