491 So. 2d 1053 - Grimes v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 2015
10 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 Shadle v. State · 44 Ala. App. 157 - Thomas v. Ware · 367 So. 2d 982 - Woods v. State · McGowan v. State · 416 So. 2d 1109 - Young 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The decision as to whether a mistrial should be granted is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Shadle v. State , 280 Ala. 379 , 194 So.2d 538 (1967); Poole v. State , 430 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). The trial judge is in the best position to determine whether a mistrial should be declared because he is able to hear and observe what happens at trial. McMurphy v. State , 455 So.2d 924 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). " 'A high degree of "manifest necessity" for granting of a mistrial must be demonstrated before a mistrial should be granted. [Citations omitted.] "The entry of a mistrial is not lightly to be undertaken. . . . [T]he entry should be only a last resort as in cases of otherwise ineradicable prejudice." [Citation omitted] (emphasis in original).' " Hunt v. State , 453 So.2d 1083 , 1085-86 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). " 'A motion for a mistrial implies a miscarriage of justice and should only be granted where it is clearly manifest that justice can not be afforded. It specifies such fundamental error in a trial as to vitiate the results. [Citation omitted.]'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Maddox v. State“'A motion for a mistrial implies a miscarriage of justice and should only be granted where it is clearly manifest that justice can not be afforded. It specifies such fundamental error in a trial as to vitiate the results. [Citation omitted.]' " Young v. State , 416 So.2d 1109 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). " 'A motion for mistrial does not serve the same function as a mere objection or motion to strike; neither does it include a motion to strike or exclude testimony as a lesser prayer for relief, [Citation omitted.]' " Hunt , supra, at 1086 . "Officer Mahaney's answers were not such that they were ineradicable from the minds of the jury. Any prejudice to the appellant as a result of Mahaney's answers could have been eradicated by curative instructions from the trial judge. Defense counsel's motion for a mistrial was not the proper way to eliminate the consideration of Mahaney's answers from the jury. Griffin v. State , 364 So.2d 428 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Maddox v. State“[a]n officer may give his opinion as to the sobriety vel non of the accused in a DUI case.”
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.