512 So. 2d 804 - Reed v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The doctrine of election operates to protect a defendant from being prosecuted for more than one offense in the same count of an indictment. Where the evidence discloses two or more offenses growing out of distinct and separate transactions, a court should grant a timely motion to require the State to elect.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. R.L.G. v. State · R.A.S. v. State

2. “'. . . . " '. . . [The appellant's] timely motion to that effect should have been granted, and the failure to grant it was reversible error.' " Deason , 363 So.2d at 1006 . "This court has also addressed the issue of election in Reed v. State , 512 So.2d 804 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987). In reversing Reed's conviction, we held that: *Page 656 " 'The state was, in the case at bar, clearly attempting to submit several different incidents to the jury without specifying upon which incident a conviction was sought. The record reveals that the jury was never instructed as to exactly which act or incident was to be considered in their determination of guilt. There was no guidance or explanation given, whatsoever, to the jury regarding the purpose of the admission of these five incidents. Indeed, it is unclear upon which incident their conviction was based.' " Reed v. State , 512 So.2d at 809 . (Emphasis in the original.)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 607 So. 2d 1288 - McMahan v. State · 707 So. 2d 652 - King v. State

3. “"The Grand Jury of said County charge that before finding this indictment on to-wit: John Michael Ward whose name is otherwise unknown to the Grand Jury other than as stated, did, intentionally cause the death of Nicholas Ward, a child less than 14 years of age having been born on or about December 6, 1996, by inflicting multiple blunt force injuries and/or causing directly or indirectly suffocation of the child, in violation of Alabama Code § 13A-5-40 (15). . . ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 814 So. 2d 899 - Ward v. State