State v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
March 1990
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 368 So. 2d 871 - Cumbo v. State · Skelton v. City of Birmingham · Ex parte Acree · 528 So. 2d 343 - Robinson v. State · 500 So. 2d 83 - Griffin v. State
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Reduced to its essentials, the State proved at trial that petitioner had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to commit the charged offense. One of petitioner's daughters, Darlene Copeland Volking, also had the opportunity, being *Page 666 present in the residence on the night of the homicide; she also had a motive, having testified that she had been molested by the deceased. In a decision followed without deviation by the Courts of this State since it was rendered, the Supreme Court in Ex parte Acree , 63 Ala. 234 (1879), with regard to the sufficiency of proof by circumstantial evidence, held that 'No matter how strong the circumstances, if they can be reconciled with the theory that some other person may have done the act, then the defendant is not shown to be guilty, by that full measure of proof which the law requires.' As such, the sufficiency of the evidence at trial depended upon proof that petitioner had superior access to or control over the means of the homicide — the .22 caliber H R revolver. "At trial, the State introduced petitioner's application for a pistol permit for the murder weapon, dated April 2, 1980, which would have rendered any permit issued pursuant to the application in effect at the time of the homicide (R-281). No pistol permit issued on the application was introduced. A reasonable jury could readily have drawn an inference from the application that the pistol was registered to petitioner as of the date of the homicide. That the murder weap”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"3. The evidence does not amount merely to impeachment evidence. "4. If the evidence had been known at the time of trial, the result would probably have been different. "5. The evidence establishes that petitioner was telling the truth about the only physical evidence introduced at trial. "6. Petitioner is innocent of the crime for which she was convicted."”
1 later decision 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.