516 So. 2d 800 - Bickerstaff v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]t is up to the trier of fact to weigh those factors [(1) testimony of the witnesses, (2) access to alcohol, and (3) the amount of time between the commission of the offense and the observation of the defendant] and determine whether the defendant was intoxicated and, if so, whether the intoxication was a result of alcohol consumption prior to or after the commission of an offense. Thus, the requirement that the State show that the defendant did not have access to, or consume, alcoholic beverages after the accident is now removed.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 529 So. 2d 1061 - State v. Wilson · 536 So. 2d 139 - Moon v. City of Montgomery

2. ““The factors to be weighed in determining whether the defendant was in fact intoxicated at the time of the offense are: (1) testimony of the witnesses, (2) access to alcohol, and (3) the amount of time between the commission of the offense and the observation of the defendant. “It is true that within a substantial amount of time after the commission of an offense, if the defendant had access to alcohol, he could become intoxicated. However, we do not view this determination to be one of law. It is for the jury to decide whether the defendant had access and whether a substantial amount of time passed. As stated by Justice Maddox in his dissent in Elmore v. State, 348 So.2d 269, 271 (Ala.1977), T believe that Ayers v. State, 48 Ala.App. 743 , 267 So.2d 533 (1972), ... states the better rule, that is that a driver’s drunken condition after an automobile accident can be a fact from which the jury would infer that he was driving the automobile while in that condition.’ On this point, insofar as Montgomery v. State, [ 44 Ala.App. 129 , 203 So.2d 695 (1967)], and cases cited therein, state a different rule, we overrule them, and hold that such questions are questions of fact, not law, and that it is up to the trier of fact to weigh those factors and determine whether the defendant was intoxicated and, if so, whether the intoxication was a result of alcohol consumption prior to or after the commission of an offense. Thus, the requirement that the State show that the defendant did not”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 588 So. 2d 215 - Mayfield v. State

3. “the trier of fact to determine, when a driver is found to be intoxicated, whether the driver's drunken condition existed at the time of the accident or arose in the interim between the accident and the investigation”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 611 So. 2d 1161 - Rice v. State