562 So. 2d 1348 - Murry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Based upon the evidence presented at trial, the evidence presented during the sentence hearing, and the pre-sentence investigation report and any evidence submitted in connection with it, the trial court shall enter specific written findings concerning the existence or nonexistence of each aggravating circumstance enumerated in section 13A-5-49 , each mitigating circumstance enumerated in section 13A-5-51 , and any additional mitigating circumstances offered pursuant to section 13A-5-52 . The trial court shall also enter written findings of facts summarizing the crime and the defendant's participation in it."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 741 So. 2d 1099 - Merrill v. State · 769 So. 2d 935 - Borden v. State

2. “" '[A] criminal conviction is not to be lightly overturned on the basis of a prosecutor's comments standing alone, for the statements or conduct must be viewed in context; only by doing so can it be determined whether the prosecutor's conduct affected the fairness of the trial.' " United States v. Young , 470 U.S. 1 , 11 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 1044 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), quoted in Murry v. State , 562 So.2d 1348 , 1354 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 659 So. 2d 135 - Allen v. State · 659 So. 2d 1021 - Butler v. State

3. “"The Court does not find statutory mitigating circumstance under Section 13A-5-51(1) to be present, to-wit: the defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity because according to the pre-sentence investigation as prepared by the Alabama Board of Pardon and Paroles, the defendant has been arrested and in some cases convicted for driving under the influence on five (5) different occasions and was arrested for Burglary in 1976 with no disposition found, was arrested and charged with violation of Uniform Alabama Controlled Substances Act in 1977 and no disposition could be found. The Court further found from the investigation that the defendant was arrested for violation of Uniform Alabama Controlled Substances Act by the police department in Fairfield, Alabama, and fined $110.00 and further was arrested for the violation of Uniform Alabama Controlled Substances Act and pled guilty in the municipal court of the City of Birmingham and received a suspended misdemeanor sentence. The defendant was also arrested by the police department of Louisville, Kentucky for wanton endangerment in the first degree and carrying a concealed weapon in 1988. He was also charged in 1988 with robbery second degree; however, all of the felony cases for which the defendant was charged either the dispositions could not be found or the cases were dismissed. Even though the defendant has not been convicted of a prior felony conviction the Court finds that the consistent arrest record of t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 809 So. 2d 841 - Apicella v. State