52 Ala. App. 265 - Goodman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

cited by 59 later decisions

states following

July 1994

most recently cited

59 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently July 1994 · most notably 364 So. 2d 397 - Jacks v. State (1978), 335 So. 2d 663 - Johnson v. State (1976)

59 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Stokley v. State · Nichols v. State · Morris v. State · Jones v. State · Elrod v. State

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

““Any circumstantial evidence is sufficient to corroborate if it proves that the accused was connected with the criminal act, or tends to connect him with the commission thereof, or if such connection may reasonably or clearly be inferred from the corroborative evidence; and where the accomplice is strongly corroborated by facts and circumstances connecting accused with the crime, a conviction will be sustained.” 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 812(3), p. 109.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Senn v. State · Jones v. State
““It is well established that when, by prearrangement or on the spur of the moment, two or more persons enter upon a common enterprise or adventure and a criminal offense is contemplated, then each is a conspirator, and if the purpose is carried out, each is guilty of the offense committed, whether he did any overt act or not. This rests on the principle that one who is present, encouraging, aiding, abetting, or assisting, or who is ready to aid, abet, or assist the other in the perpetration or commission of the offense, is a guilty participant, and in the eye of the law is equally guilty with the one who does the act. Such community of purpose or conspiracy need not be proved by positive testimony. It rarely is so proved. The jury is to determine whether it exists, and the extent of it, from the conduct of the parties and all the testimony in the case. Morris v. State, 146 Ala. 66 , 41 So. 274 , and cases cited; Jones v. State, 174 Ala. 53 , 57 So. 31 ; Teague v. State, 245 Ala. 339 , 16 So.2d 877 . “When two or more persons enter upon an unlawful purpose, with a common intent to aid and encourage each other in anything within their common design, they are each responsible, civilly and criminally,, for everything which may consequently and subsequently result from such unlawful purpose, whether specifically contemplated or not. Jones v. State, supra; Jolly v. State [ 94 Ala. 19 , 10 So. 606 ], supra; Tanner v. State, 92 Ala. 1 , 9 So. 613 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 53 Ala. App. 504 - Creel v. State
“"Exclusion of some witnesses and not others is entirely a matter of discretion with the trial court, and this discretion is not reviewable. This seems to be particularly true in the case of law enforcement officers. DeFranze v. State , 46 Ala. App. 283 , 241 So.2d 125 ; Nichols v. State , 267 Ala. 217 , 100 So.2d 750 ; Elrod v. State , 281 Ala. 331 , 202 So.2d 539 ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 648 So. 2d 629 - Johnson v. State

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.