548 So. 2d 562 - Ex Parte Hinton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

69 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`It is only the most compelling prejudice, against which the trial court will not be able to afford protection, that will be sufficient to show the court abused its discretion in not granting a severance. Moreover, a defendant seeking to overturn a denial of severance must demonstrate specific prejudice which resulted from the denial. A mere showing of some prejudice is insufficient.'"”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boyle v. State · Graves v. State

2. “"The consolidation of the noncapital offenses and the capital offenses in this case was proper because the crimes were of a similar character and because evidence of each crime would have been admissible in a trial for the others as evidence of a common plan, scheme, or design, of Lewis's intent, and of Lewis's motive. The crimes were similar in that each occurred in Baldwin County near where Lewis lived; each involved a young female victim with brown hair; each involved a murder, robbery, rape, and kidnapping or an attempt thereof; and, in each case, Lewis used or planned to use a knife. Each crime would have been admissible in the trial of the others as evidence of a common plan, scheme, or design—to kidnap, rape, rob, and murder young women with brown hair who resembled and/or reminded Lewis of his ex-wife Lena—and of Lewis's intent and motive."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 728 So. 2d 172 - Ex Parte Scott · 937 So. 2d 1065 - Scott v. State

3. “"A defendant's guilt may be established by circumstantial evidence as well as by direct evidence. As long as the circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it will support a conviction as strongly as direct evidence. In reviewing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, '[t]he test to be applied is whether the jury might reasonably find that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypotheses except that of guilt; not whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but guilt, but whether a jury might reasonably so conclude.' "”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Langley v. State · 577 So. 2d 474 - Kuenzel v. State