506 So. 2d 360 - McDaniel v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 2020
7 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 368 So. 2d 871 - Cumbo v. State · Skelton v. City of Birmingham · 435 So. 2d 158 - Smith v. State · 425 So. 2d 500 - Gwin v. State · 425 So. 2d 510 - Ex Parte Gwin
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"To establish a predicate for admitting the test results, without reliance on the statute, there should be evidence that: "(1) the theory underlying the photoelectric intoximeter test is valid and generally accepted as such; "(2) the intoximeter is a reliable instrument and generally accepted as such; "(3) the intoximeter test was administered by a qualified individual who could properly conduct the test and interpret the results; and "(4) the instrument used in conducting the test was in good working condition and the test was conducted in such a manner as to secure accurate results. "See, E. Imwinkelried, Evidentiary Foundations , p. 92 (1980)."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. McDaniel v. State · Ex Parte Mayo“'While we find no Alabama cases which specifically outline all the requisite elements of a predicate for the admission of scientific test results, it is generally held that such a predicate must show that the circumstances of the taking of the sample, the identification, maintenance, and transporting of it, and the testing itself are scientifically acceptable and reasonably expected to produce results which are accurate and reliable. See, e.g., 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence , 830 (1967).'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Mayo · Moorman v. State““[E]ven had we found the foundation for the admittance of the test results to have been insufficient, the erroneous admission of the test results would not require a reversal in this case. “It is clear from the record that the trial judge’s ruling was not based on the results of the blood test. He clearly indicated that the uncontroverted fact that the appellant had been drinking earlier in the day in combination with the uncontrovert-ed fact that the appellant was aware that he was tired and sleepy and continued to drive the automobile formed basis of his ruling. (R. 304.) The appellant was, therefore, not unduly prejudiced by the admission of the evidence. A.R.A.P. 45. See Gwin [v. State, 425 So.2d 500 (Ala.Cr.App.1982], supra.””
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.