54 Ala. App. 656 - Cunningham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We cannot find that the appellant was convicted solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. The word ‘corroboration’ as used in Title 15, § 307, Code of Alabama 1940, has been defined to mean ‘strengthen’, not necessarily to prove a specific fact testified to by the accomplice. Corroboration was generally not required at common law, thus § 307, supra, being in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed. Alldredge v. State, 45 Ala.App. 171 , 227 So.2d 803 (1969); Patterson v. State, 45 Ala.App. 229 , 228 So.2d 843 (1969); Smothers v. State, 38 Ala.App. 153 , 83 So.2d 374 , cert. denied 263 Ala. 701 , 83 So.2d 376 (1954-55). “[3] Corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice need not be sufficiently strong of itself to support a conviction, and it is sufficient if it tends to connect the accused with the offense. Wyatt v. State, 51 Ala.App. 226 , 283 So.2d 675 ; Goodman v. State, 52 Ala.App. 265, 291 So.2d 358 (1974); Bridges v. State, 52 Ala.App. 546 , 295 So.2d 266 (1974); Seawright v. State, 52 Ala.App. 286 , 291 So.2d 376 (1974); O’Neal v. State, 53 Ala.App. 133 , 298 So.2d 62 , cert. denied 292 Ala. 744 , 298 So.2d 70 (1974). “[5] Once the trial judge has determined as a matter of law that there is evidence which tends to connect a defendant with the crime, in corroboration of testimony given by an accomplice, it is then within the province of the jury to determine the credibility, weight, or probative force which should be accorded such evid”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 342 So. 2d 437 - Dudley v. State

2. “"[T]he test to corroborate the accomplice's testimony is not that evidence independent of such testimony standing alone would prove the appellant committed the crime. The test rather is that there be independent evidence going to strengthen or fortify the statement of the accomplice which would tend to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. . . ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 407 So. 2d 153 - Reed v. State