501 So. 2d 496 - McCall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 24 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'The rule in our State is that an allegation in an indictment which is but mere surplusage may be disregarded — it is immaterial for any purpose. The exception to this rule — which does not occur in this case — is that if the allegation (constituting surplusage)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smoak v. State · 659 So. 2d 933 - Hunt v. State

2. “"In Moulds v. State, 426 So.2d 942, 946 (Ala.Cr.App.1982), this Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in having an apparent accomplice `declared a court's witness, or in effect a witness adverse to the prosecution, when it became apparent that ... [the accomplice-witness] was reluctant to testify.' In Lewis v. State, 414 So.2d 135, 138 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 414 So.2d 140 (Ala.1982), this Court held that the trial court did not err in granting a prosecution's request to declare a witness a court's own witness where that witness was the defendant's fiance and had a role in concealing evidence of her father's killing. See also Wiggins v. State, 398 So.2d 780, 783 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 398 So.2d 783 (Ala.1981) (no abuse of discretion in refusing defense request to have one of its witnesses declared a court's witness where `the witness apparently had no connection or relationship with the appellant either casually, socially, or otherwise' and the record did not reflect `any animosity or ill feelings between the witness and the appellant' and did `not indicate, other than through the statements of appellant's attorney, that the witness was testifying differently from that which the appellant expected'); Lawrence v. State, 57 Ala.App. 639, 642 , 331 So.2d 284 (1976) (following and stating general rule that `while it seems that it is within the discretion of a trial judge to honor a request by the defendant that a person be called as the court's w”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 893 So. 2d 488 - Snyder v. State

3. “"Evidence of similar facts or other offenses to show system, scheme, plan or habit must be relevant to be admissible. Garner v. State , 269 Ala. 531 , 533 , 114 So.2d 385 (1959). 'Stated another way, the State is not permitted to give in *Page 642 evidence other crimes alleged to have been committed by the defendant unless they are so connected by circumstances with the particular crime charged as that proof of one fact with its circumstances has some bearing on the issue on trial other than to show in the defendant a tendency or disposition to commit the crime with which he is charged.' Garner , 269 Ala. at 533 , 114 So.2d 385 . "Where, however, extrinsic acts are admitted to show a common plan, scheme, or design, the meaning and nature of the 'similarity' requirement is different. In this context, evidence of the 'other act' is admissible only if it is 'so linked together in point of time and circumstances with the crime charged that one cannot be shown without proving the other.' [ U.S. v. ] Beechum , 582 F.2d [898] at 912 n. 15 [5th Cir. 1978]; United States v. Broadway , 477 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1973). Courts have admitted extrinsic act evidence to show a defendant's design or plan to commit the specific crime charged, but never to show a design or plan to commit ' crimes of the sort with which he is charged.' United States v. Goodwin , 492 F.2d 1141 , 1153 (5th Cir. 1974) (emphasis in original). Thus, proof of design or plan by showing the commission of similar acts requi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 548 So. 2d 638 - Schut v. State