514 So. 2d 1042 - Lowe v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The law is well settled in Alabama that whenever the state has introduced evidence tending to show flight by the accused, the accused is permitted to rebut *Page 76 the inference that he fled out of a consciousness of guilt by introducing evidence to explain his reason for flight. . . . Such evidence must, of course, have some tendency to prove the thing for which it is offered. . . . Alabama case law indicates, however, that the accused is to be given wide latitude in presenting evidence as to his motivation for flight. . . . 'Evidence is relevant if it has any probative value, however slight, upon a matter at issue in the case.' . . . 'Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to throw light upon the matter in issue, even though such light may be weak and fall short of demonstration." ' . . . [A] person's motivation for flight need not be rational to be admissible. Whether the evidence is sufficient to negate the inference that he fled because of a consciousness of guilt is a question for the jury, not the court. In Goforth v. State , 183 Ala. 66 , 63 So. 8 (1913) [(holding that it was error for the court to exclude the contents of two postal cards, written by the defendant to his mother, in which he stated where he was going and what he intended to do)], the court stated: " 'The question as to why the defendant left the community and remained away from it becomes a question for the jury, and so, when the state offers the fact of the defendant's flight from the communit”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harrison v. State

2. ““The law is well settled in Alabama that whenever the state has introduced evidence tending to show flight by the accused, the accused is permitted to rebut the inference that he fled out of a consciousness of guilt by introducing evidence to explain his reason for flight. Mitchell v. State, 53 Ala.App. 625 , 303 So.2d 123 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 293 Ala. 767 , 303 So.2d 126 (1974); Jones v. State, 52 Ala.App. 184 , 290 So.2d 251 (Ala.Cr.App.1974); Green v. State, 258 Ala. 471 , 64 So.2d 84 (1953); Peoples v. State, 256 Ala. 612 , 56 So.2d 665 (1952).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kernochan v. State

3. “"[i]t is well settled law that the prosecution may not introduce evidence of a defendant's prior crimes for the purpose of showing the defendant's general bad character or his propensity to violate the law. Ex parte Weeks , 456 So.2d 404 (Ala. 1984); Ex parte Baldwin , 456 So.2d 129 (Ala. 1984). Although the questions asked by the prosecution in this case do not constitute a direct comment on the appellant's prior criminal record, the jury could have reasonably inferred that the appellant had previously been arrested for a different offense."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nelson v. State