49 Ala. App. 563 - Harnage v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““At the conclusion of the oral charge, the Court instructed the jury to retire and make up the verdict. The record reveals the following: ‘(Whereupon, a juror stood.) ‘JUROR: Your Honor, is it permissible for us to see the defendant’s hands ? ‘THE COURT: See his hands ? ‘JUROR: Yes sir. ‘THE COURT: Not unless he wants you to, or his lawyers say that you can. Why don’t you go upstairs and let me discuss this with the attorneys and I will call you back down, and I may have a little further charge for you.’ “After the jury left the courtroom, the Court said, ‘Does either side want to take an exception ?’ “Whereupon appellant’s counsel reserved an exception and moved for a mistrial because of the misconduct of the juror in putting appellant in an untenable position. The trial court overruled the motion for a mistrial and exceptions were reserved. The jury returned and Court gave the following additional charge: ‘THE COURT: Gentlemen, I have considered your request and since the testimony, or evidence, has been closed and you have already received the charge of the Court and the argument of counsel, it’s my judgment that the request comes too late and is not proper. I am taking the responsibility of denying that request. You may retire and consider your verdict.’ “We hold the action of the trial judge in this matter to be reversible error. “Appellant, as above noted, took the witness stand in his own behalf. The District Attorney cross-examined him as to the scratches on his hands”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harnage v. State

2. “"It has long been the law in this State that the clothing of the deceased, as well as that of the accused, are admissible in homicide cases, when such objects tend to corroborate or disprove, illustrate or elucidate, any other evidence, or to identify any of the parties, or connect the accused with the crime, although such evidence may have a tendency to bias or prejudice the jury, and elicit their sympathy for, or animosity toward either the deceased or the accused. Campbell v. State , 23 Ala. 44 ; Teague v. State , 245 Ala. 339 , 16 So.2d 877 ; Barbour v. State , 262 Ala. 297 , 78 So.2d 328 ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 353 So. 2d 810 - Ellenburg v. State

3. “"Circumstantial evidence may afford satisfactory proof of the corpus delicti in a murder prosecution, and, if facts are presented from which the jury may reasonably infer the crime has been committed, the question must be submitted to the jury, and other evidence tending to implicate the defendant is thereby rendered admissible. Johnson v. State , 247 Ala. 271 , 24 So.2d 17 ; Phillips v. State , 248 Ala. 510 , 28 So.2d 542 ; McKee v. State , 33 Ala. App. 171 , 31 So.2d 656 ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Breen v. State