506 So. 2d 368 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Loggins v. State (2000), 581 So. 2d 1144 - McLeod v. State (1990)
35 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 Mempa v. Rhay · Dennison v. State · 435 So. 2d 158 - Smith v. State · Fincher v. State · Coats 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The photographs of the victim were properly admitted into evidence. Photographic exhibits are admissible even though they may be cumulative, ... demonstrative of undisputed facts, ... or gruesome....”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Peraita v. State · Stewart v. State“"Section 15-18-67 , Code of Alabama 1975, provides that the court 'shall hold' a restitution hearing to determine pecuniary loss to a crime victim, at which time '[t]he defendant, the victim or victims, or their representatives . . . as well as the district attorney shall have the right to be present and be heard upon the issue of restitution . . . ' (emphasis added in Williams ) See also Rule 10(a)(5), Ala.Cr.Crim.P.Temp. ('[Restitution] . . . shall be determined by the court from evidence presented at the sentence hearing if not stipulated by the parties.') "Because a defendant has the right to the presence of counsel at sentencing, Mempa v. Rhay , 389 U.S. 128 , 88 S.Ct. 254 , 19 L.Ed.2d 336 (1967); Ex parte Anderson , 434 So.2d 737 (Ala. 1983), the court may not proceed without counsel or a waiver of counsel. In the absence of defendant's waiver of counsel or a stipulation by the parties as to the amount of restitution, neither of which appears of record here, the trial court was not authorized by the constitution (U.S. Const. Amend VI) or by statute (Ala. Code, § 15-18-67 ) to order restitution in the absence of the defendant and his attorney."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jolly v. State“"One who intentionally draws a gun in response to or in anticipation of a confrontation with another is certainly aware of the risk that the gun might discharge; therefore, he cannot be guilty of mere criminal negligence. Appellant was guilty of either murder or manslaughter or he was guilty of nothing at all."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bunn v. State
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.