575 So. 2d 1212 - Meyer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The guarantee against twice being placed in jeopardy for the same offense protects (1) against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) against a second prosecution for the same *Page 814 offense after conviction, and (3) against multiple punishments for the same offense. North Carolina v. Pearce , 395 U.S. 711 , 717 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 2076 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). The appellant's convictions and sentence concern the third of these guarantees. "The appellant was indicted for three separate offenses. Though the appellant was indicted for three counts of capital murder, he was ultimately convicted for three counts of the lesser included offense of intentional murder. These three counts were contained in the same statute. An evaluation of the case under [ In re ] Sisson v. State , 528 So.2d 1159 (Ala. 1988), shows that the appellant could not have been convicted of three counts of the same statute. As this court stated in Sisson , '[T]he two subsections of a similar statute were merely alternative methods of proving the same crime, and therefore, did not constitute separate offenses.' Sisson , 528 So.2d at 1162 . Thus appellant's conviction on three counts of intentional murder violated the protection against double jeopardy guaranteed to him by the constitution. "The state argues that since the appellant was only sentenced once, to 50 years' imprisonment, the error is harmless. We do not agree with this argument. The United States Supreme Court stated in B”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 886 So. 2d 891 - Coleman v. State · 673 So. 2d 812 - Rolling v. State

2. “"The appellant contends that he was twice put in jeopardy for the same offense because he was convicted of the lesser included offense of murder under Count I, which alleged the capital offense of murder-robbery, and he was also convicted of the capital offense of murder-burglary under Count II. It is clear that these two offenses arose out of the same conduct and that his murder conviction constitutes a conviction for the same murder that was an element of the capital offense of murder-burglary for which he was also convicted. While the appellant was in fact sentenced only for the greater offense, his murder conviction under Count I cannot *Page 815 stand. Section § 13A-1-8 (b) provides, in part, as follows: " 'When the same conduct of a defendant may establish the commission of more than one offense, the defendant may be prosecuted for each such offense. He may not, however, one offense if: " '(1) One offense is included in the other, as defined in section § 13A-1-9 . . . ." 1 "Clearly, under § 13A-1-9 , murder is included in the capital offense of murder-burglary. . . . Accordingly, this cause is remanded for the trial court to vacate the appellant's conviction for murder under Count I of the indictment. However, the appellant's conviction for the capital offense of murder-burglary was proper in this regard and thus it stands."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 673 So. 2d 812 - Rolling v. State