557 So. 2d 1322 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 2018
7 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 Abel v. United States · Figueroa v. United States · 368 So. 2d 871 - Cumbo v. State · Skelton v. City of Birmingham · United States v. Colbert
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Clearly, `the prosecution must prove that the accused actually knew that the property was stolen or that he had reasonable grounds to believe it was stolen.' Ashurst v. State, 462 So.2d 999, 1004 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). However, it is well settled that the `possession of recently stolen goods raises a presumption that the defendant had the requisite "knowledge" [that the goods were stolen].' Goodman v. State, 401 So.2d 208, 210 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 401 So.2d 213 (Ala.1981). See also Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-8-16(b). In fact, both `the requisite guilty knowledge and intent for the offense of receiving stolen property "may be inferred by the jury from the possession of recently stolen property as well as [from] the facts and circumstances surrounding the entire transaction."` Carlisle v. State, 465 So.2d 1205, 1206 (Ala.Cr.App.1984)."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. AM v. State · K.J. v. State“"(a) A person commits the crime of receiving stolen property if he intentionally receives, retains or disposes of stolen property knowing that it has been stolen or having reasonable grounds to believe it has been stolen, unless the property is received, retained or disposed of with intent to restore it to the owner."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“does not violate the fourth amendment. See e.g . Abel v. United States , 362 U.S. 217 , 241, 80 S.Ct. 683 , 698, 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960).'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tolbert v. State
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.