555 So. 2d 768 - Henry v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2017
22 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Mooney v. Holohan · Bibby v. United States · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · 368 So. 2d 871 - Cumbo v. State · Skelton v. City of Birmingham
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[t]he words `aid and abet' encompass all assistance by acts, words of encouragement, or support, or presence, actual or constructive, to render assistance should it become necessary. Wright [v. State , 494 So.2d 936 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986)]; Sanders v. State , 423 So.2d 348 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). Actual participation in the crime need not be proved by positive testimony to convict someone of aiding and abetting. `The jury is to determine whether the appellant's participation exists and the extent of it from the conduct of the parties and all the testimony presented.' Walls v. State , 378 So.2d 1186 , 1191 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), cert. denied, Ex parte Walls , 378 So.2d 1193 (Ala. 1980). Such facts as the defendant's presence in connection with his companionship, and his conduct at, before, and after the commission of the act, are potent circumstances from which participation may be inferred. Sanders v. State , supra; Smith v. State , 57 Ala.App. 151 , *Page 580 326 So.2d 680 (1975), cert. denied, 295 Ala. 419 , 326 So.2d 686 (1976)."”
9 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. State · Bradford v. State“"`[w]here the evidence is conflicting as to the defendant's connection as an accomplice or co-conspirator, a jury question is presented.' Sanders v. State , [ 423 So.2d 348 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982)], citing Watkins v. State , 357 So.2d 156 , 160 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 161 ([Ala.]1978)."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"(a) A person commits the crime of robbery in the third degree if in the course of committing a theft he:”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.