512 So. 2d 790 - Levert v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““While this cause was pending in this court, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered its opinion in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). In Batson , the court rejected the evidentiary burden which had formerly been placed upon a defendant who asserted an equal protection of law claim with reference to the State’s alleged discriminatory use of peremptory challenges under Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 , 85 S.Ct. 824 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965). The U.S. Supreme Court overruled Swain in this regard and adopted a case by case approach to the proof re quired to show discriminatory challenges instead of the heavy burden of proving historical data of continued or systematic exclusion of blacks from juries in case after case, whatever the circumstances, whatever the crime and whoever the defendant or victim may be. Batson, supra. “Under date of January 13,1987 in Griffith v. Kentucky, and Brown v. United States, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987), the United States Supreme Court determined that their opinion in Batson should be applied retroactively to all cases pending on original direct appeal as of April 30, 1986, the date of Batson . “This holding in Griffith and Brown, supra is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of their understanding of the retroactivity of their opinions. Specifically, see Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 259 , 89 S.Ct. 1030, 1039 , 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969); United States v. Joh”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jordan v. State

2. ““In prosecutions for obtaining or exerting unauthorized control of allegedly stolen property or buying, receiving or concealing same, there must be proof of the value of the allegedly stolen items. Booker v. State, 151 Ala. 97 , 44 So. 56 (1907); Lang v. State, 23 Ala.App. 576 , 129 So. 312 (1930); Padgett v. State, 44 Ala.App. 548 , 216 So.2d 187 (1968); Nelson v. State, 56 Ala.App. 209 , 320 So.2d 714 (1975). As noted by this court in DeBruce v. State, 461 So.2d 889 (Ala.Crim.App.1984), speaking through Presiding Judge Bowen, we find the following: “ ‘The only predicate necessary for the receipt of opinion testimony of value is that the witness has had an opportunity to form a correct opinion of the value of the stolen property. State v. Johnson, 268 Ala. 11, 13 , 104 So.2d 915 (1958); Tice v. State, 386 So.2d 1180, 1186 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Tice, 386 So.2d 1187 (Ala.1980); Alabama Code 1975, § 12-21-114. For purposes of offenses involving theft, “value” is defined as “[t]he market value of the property at the time and place of the criminal act.” Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-8-l(14).’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. R.L.M. v. State

3. “would leave it up to the Lord to take care of — to be the ultimate judge and the ultimate provider of punishment for criminals”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 594 So. 2d 664 - Warner v. State