53 Ala. App. 27 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The scintilla rule does not apply in criminal cases. There must be substantial evidence tending to prove all the elements of the charge. Ex parte Grimmett, 228 Ala. 1 , 152 So. 263 . The burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime has been committed and that the defendant was the person who committed it. Jarrell v. State, 251 Ala. 50 , 36 So.2d 336 . The weight of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence, where susceptible of more than one rational conclusion, are for the jury alone. Byrd v. State, 213 Ala. 333 , 104 So. 830 . “We cannot say in the instant case that there was not enough evidence to allow the jury to draw the inference that the defendant was the person who committed this robbery. The defendant presented a strong case in support of his alibi. The testimony of his witnesses was in direct conflict with the testimony of the State’s witness. Yet the State’s witness made a positive identification of defendant as the person who robbed and burned him. The State presented substantial evidence and the jury had before it an adequate basis for drawing inferences and conclusions against the defendant. It is for the jury, not the trial court or this court, to find the facts and to determine guilt or innocence. The State presented sufficient evidence upon which the jury could base its verdict.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mullins v. State · Savage v. State

2. ““The law is that a verdict of conviction should not be set aside on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain it, unless, after allowing all reasonable presumptions of its correctness, the preponderance of the evidence against the verdict is so decided as to clearly convince the court that it was wrong and unjust. We are not so convinced. Bridges v. State, 284 Ala. 412 , 225 So.2d 821 ; Jones v. State, 40 Ala.App. 419 , 114 So.2d 575 .””

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

3. “It is settled law that conflicts in alibi testimony presented by the accused and identification testimony of the victim in a robbery prosecution is peculiarly within the province of the jury to resolve. For a collection of the cases on this principle see Ala.Dig.Cr.Law, Key No. 739 (2).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 415 So. 2d 1171 - Williams v. State