536 So. 2d 129 - Moss v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he general rule is that consistency between the verdicts on the separate counts of a multicount indictment is not required.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lackey v. State · 851 So. 2d 103 - Fitch v. State

2. “"Under § 13A-7-1 (4), a person 'enters or remains unlawfully' when he is not licensed or privileged to do so. (For discussion of what constitutes license or privilege to enter or remain upon premises, see Restatement of the Law of Torts, Second, Chapter 8, Privileged Entries on Land.) A person who is licensed or privileged to enter premises cannot, therefore, commit criminal trespass or burglary under the proposal. Of course, a person who gains admittance through intimidation, deception, trick or artifice does not enter with 'license or privilege.' "The words 'remain unlawfully' are designed to cover cases where a person enters with license or privilege but remains after termination of such license or privilege. Thus a person who enters a department store during regular business hours and secretes himself in a public washroom until after the store is closed, 'remains unlawfully' within the meaning of subdivision (4)."”

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

3. ““The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not be applied so as to bar the use in the prosecution’s case in chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a. detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be invalid. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984); McBride v. State, 492 So.2d 654, 658 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). Although the ‘good faith’ exception does not apply to a ‘bare bones’ affidavit or one so lacking in indi-cia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable, the affidavit in this case was not so lacking. Crittenden v. State, 476 So.2d at 635 .” Moss v. State, 536 So.2d 129 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988).”

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