539 So. 2d 436 - Connolly v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" 'No party may assign as error the court's . . . failing to give a written instruction . . . unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. ' Rule 14, Temp.A.R.Cr.P. (emphasis added). Here, defense counsel made the following objection, 'We'd except, of course, to you not giving all of our written charges as being correct statements of the law, the ones you did not give.' Counsel 'failed to set forth the specific grounds for his objection.' Ex parte Johnson , 433 So.2d 479 , 480 (Ala. 1983). See Matkins v. State , 497 So.2d 201 , 202 (Ala. 1986). The reference to 'all of' his written charges as 'correct statements of the law' is simply not a specific ground of objection, especially in view of the fact that defense counsel submitted 33 charges, 18 of which were refused. While defense counsel is not required 'to deliver a discourse before the trial judge on the applicable law of the case,' Gardner v. Dorsey , 331 So.2d 634 , 637 (Ala. 1976) (construing Rule 51, A.R.Civ.P.), he is required to direct the court's attention to the reason why a particular requested charge, which is at a minimum a 'correct statement of the law,' applies in a particular case. '[E]rrors by the trial court such as . . . refusals of written charges . . . should be brought to the attention of the trial court so that it *Page 380 might cure such errors at that level.' Allen v. State , 414 So.2d 989 , 992 (A”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 588 So. 2d 526 - Hagood v. State · 615 So. 2d 126 - Moody v. State

2. “"For purposes of former jeopardy, the felony which provides the component necessary to elevate an intentional killing to capital murder is a lesser included offense of the capital crime. Section 13A-5-41 ; J. Colquitt, The Death Penalty Laws of Alabama, 33 Ala.L.Rev. 213, 254 (1982) (`In the ordinary case, lesser included offenses will include some or all lesser degrees of homicide and the lesser degrees of crimes within the definition of the aggravating component. Additionally, lesser included offenses may themselves include lesser offenses supported by the evidence.'); E. Carnes, Alabama's 1981 Capital Punishment Statute, 12 Alabama Lawyer 456, 472 (1981). See also Sekou v. Blackburn, 796 F.2d 108 , 110 (5th Cir. 1986) (`The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits prosecution and conviction for both felony murder and the enumerated felony. . . . The underlying felony is considered a lesser included offense of felony murder and thus the "same offense" for double jeopardy purposes.'). Therefore, robbery is a lesser included offense of the capital offense of the capital offense involving murder-robbery."”

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

3. “"Under this test, a lesser included offense is the 'same' as the greater offense and a former conviction of the lesser offense bars a prosecution for the greater. 'The state cannot elect to prosecute and try a person for a lower grade, and then put him on trial for a higher grade, of the same offense.' If the accused has been convicted of a lesser-included offense, he may not thereafter be prosecuted for the greater offense."”

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