51 Ala. App. 324 - Boyd v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2001
17 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 · 49 Ala. App. 233 - Thigpen v. State · 39 Ala. App. 29 - Beddow v. State · 44 Ala. App. 157 - Thomas v. Ware · 45 Ala. App. 88 - Franks 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`That the conduct of the witness caused or could have caused any injury to defendant is highly speculative, but whether so or not, the action of the trial court was well within its discretionary province....' Boyd v. State, 51 Ala.App. 324, 327 , 285 So.2d 134, 137 (1973) cert. denied, 291 Ala. 773 , 285 So.2d 138 (Ala.1973). "`When a witness disobeys an order excluding him from the courtroom during the examination of witnesses, the better practice, where there has been no misconduct of the party calling him, is to admit his testimony, and punish him for contempt. Bell v. State, 44 Ala. 393 . It is discretionary with the trial court to permit a witness placed under the rule, but who violates it, to testify. Sanders v. State, 105 Ala. 4, 8 , 16 So. 935 ; Hall v. State, 137 Ala. [44], 47, 34 So. 680 ; Wilson v. State, 52 Ala. 299 ' " Moulton v. State, 19 Ala.App. 446, 449 , 98 So. 709 , cert. denied, 210 Ala. 656 , 98 So. 715 (1923). See also Dotson v. State, 49 Ala.App. 37 , 268 So.2d 503, 505 (1972). "Furthermore, in Goodman v. State, 52 Ala.App. 265 , 291 So.2d 358, 363 (1974), the trial court permitted three deputy sheriffs who were witnesses in the case to remain in the courtroom for security purposes, although the rule had been invoked. This court stated: "`Exclusion of some witnesses and not others is entirely a matter of discretion with the trial court, and this discretion is not reviewable.... Defranze v. State, 46 Ala.App. 283 , 241 So.2d 125 ; Nichols v. State, 267 ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“That the conduct of the witness caused or could have caused any injury to defendant is highly speculative, but whether so or not, the action of the trial court was well within its discretionary province. . . .”
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.