51 Ala. App. 589 - Character v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is the law of this state that the unexplained possession of property does not raise the presumption that the property was stolen. There must be other *Page 1170 evidence of the corpus delicti. When this has been shown, and the stolen property, soon after the offense, is found in possession of a person, who is unable to give a satisfactory explanation of his possession, then the jury is authorized to infer his guilt. Orr v. State , 107 Ala. 35 , 18 So. 142 ; Buckles v. State , 291 Ala. 352 , 280 So.2d 814 (1972). "The requisite scienter for the crime of receiving stolen property may be inferred from the recent possession of stolen goods. Stanley v. State , 46 Ala. App. 542 , 245 So.2d 827 . "In Buckles , supra, our Supreme Court cited with approval the following quotation from the case of Aron v. United States , 8 Cir., 382 F.2d 965 , 970 : `The doctrine that possession of recently stolen property gives a permissible inference of knowledge on the part of the possessor that the property had been stolen, unless the possession thereof is accounted for in a reasonable and satisfactory manner consistent with the circumstances of the possession, is a factually sound and a necessary evidentiary rule. Without this evidentiary rule in criminal cases it would be almost impossible to consider for conviction any of the possessors or fences of stolen property unless they admitted that they knew the property to be stolen, which is an admission not likely to be forthcoming.'"”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Belue v. State · Lawrence v. State