515 So. 2d 121 - Handley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Here, as in [ Ex parte ] Dolvin, [ 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980),] there was no scientific test or experiment. Rather, there was a physical comparison, as in Dolvin . In Dolvin , the court pointed out the following: "`Alabama case law supports the admission of inter vivos photographs for the purpose of allowing the jury to compare the teeth of a human skull with those of the person depicted in the photograph. DeSilvey v. State, 245 Ala. 163 , 16 So.2d 183 (1943). Expert testimony comparing inter vivos photographs with a human skull is a refinement and extension of this procedure, but is nonetheless admissible, assuming a proper predicate [of expertise] is laid.' "Id. at 679-80. "In a recent bite mark case of first impression in the State of Wisconsin, the court of appeals observed the following: `Currently, bite mark comparison has received evidentiary acceptance in nineteen jurisdictions. No jurisdiction has rejected the admission of such evidence.' State v. Stinson, 134 Wis.2d 224, 228, n. 2 , 397 N.W.2d 136, 137, n. 2 (1986). One of those jurisdictions which accept such testimony is Florida. The Supreme Court of Florida recognizes the Frye [v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir. 1923)] standard, but in the recent case of Bundy v. State, 455 So.2d 330, 349 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1109 , 106 S.Ct. 1958 , 90 L.Ed.2d 366 (1986), rejected the applicability of Frye to the admission of bite mark comparison and stated the following: "`The evidence in question is based on t”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Richards · 932 So. 2d 923 - Calhoun v. State

2. “"A witness spouse is both competent and compellable when called to testify against the other spouse in a civil case. When called in a criminal case against the accused spouse, the witness spouse is competent but not compellable; meaning that the witness spouse generally has a privilege not to testify for or against the accused spouse. In summary, a willing spouse may give adverse testimony against the other spouse in both civil and criminal cases. Even after taking the stand, however, such witness spouse generally may not divulge confidential communications that transpired between the two of them. The historic justification for the privileged communications rules is to encourage family harmony by fostering communications between spouses. It was for the promotion of this policy that [Rule 504,] Alabama Rule[s] of Evidence was adopted. ". . . . "Rule 504(a) provides protection, under Alabama's husband-wife privilege, for confidential communications. As under preexisting law, however, the term `communication' is given an expansive interpretation to include acts as well as communications. Indeed, the privilege for confidential communications between spouses applies not only to statements but also to knowledge acquired by one spouse's observation of an act of the other in private if the circumstances indicate that the actor-spouse did the act in the presence of the other spouse solely because of the confidence normally inspired by the marriage relationship. Stated differently, the”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. State · 720 So. 2d 1043 - Hall v. State

3. “'The difficulty with this argument is that it goes too far. The rationale of the privilege is clearly inapplicable to a case, for example, where the wife, unknown to the husband, observes him disposing of a dead body in the outhouse. Since the husband did not take the wife into his confidence, it would be nonsense for the tribunal to deprive itself of the wife's evidence on the ground that compulsory disclosure in in such cases would discourage marital confidence.”

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