549 So. 2d 155 - Briggs v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'[T]he decision whether to remove an appointed counsel and appoint another counsel for defendant is within the sound discretion of the trial court.' Crawford v. State , 479 So.2d 1349 , 1355 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). See also, Tudhope v. State , 364 So.2d 708 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978). Moreover, the right to counsel of one's choice is not absolute, as is the right to assistance of counsel. United States v. Gray , 565 F.2d 881 , 887 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 955 , 98 S.Ct. 1587 , 55 L.Ed.2d 807 (1978). The right to choose counsel may not be subverted to obstruct the orderly procedure in the court or to interfere with the fair administration of justice. United States v. Sexton , 473 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1973).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baker v. State · Steeley v. State

2. “[T]he decision whether to remove an appointed counsel and appoint another counsel for defendant is within the sound discretion of the trial court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gavin v. State · 937 So. 2d 1065 - Scott v. State

3. ““ ‘ “The general rule is that evidence of other crimes not charged in the indictment is inadmissible if its only purpose is to show the bad character, inclination or propensity of the accused to commit the type of crime for which he is being prosecuted.’” Barton v. State, 494 So.2d 943, 952 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (citations omitted). See also, C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence, § 69.01(1) (3d ed.1977). However, evidence of distinct and independent offenses is admissible in the trial of a person accused of a specific crime when its purpose is to establish identity or a single plan, design, scheme, or system. Dowdell v. State, 480 So.2d 45 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). “In the case sub judice, identity was very much in question at the appellant’s trial, as he denied setting fire to his estranged wife’s house, because there were no witnesses who could place him at the house at the time the blaze began. Evidence of the two fires that occurred in February 1987 was properly admissible in the present case as tending to prove that the appellant was the person who set the house fire. “The appellant contends in his brief that he was never charged with the two earlier fires, that no one saw him set them, and therefore that'they should not have been allowed into evidence. In support of his argument, the appellant cites Williams v. State, 350 So.2d 708 (Ala.1977). Initially, this Court notes that, ‘[i]f the accused’s commission of another crime is otherwise competent and admissible under one of the e”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 163 So. 3d 389 - Scott v. State