575 So. 2d 1221 - Sandlin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The UTTC in this case, by reference to the § 32-5A-191 (a)(2) and by describing the offense by tracking the language of (a)(1), charged the appellant under both subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2). Thus, in attempting to prove that the appellant was guilty of driving under the influence, the State had the option of proving either that he was 'under the influence of alcohol' or that his blood alcohol content was more than .10 percent. However, prior to trial, the district [attorney] stated that he was proceeding under (a)(2). Under subsection (a)(2), " 'the prosecution must prove that the defendant "was under the influence of alcohol [i.e., that he had consumed alcohol] to the extent that it affected his ability to operate his vehicle in a safe manner." [ Ex parte ] Buckner , 549 So.2d [451, 453 (Ala. 1989)]. Although it *Page 165 is not required to do so, the prosecution may, in a prosecution under (a)(2) introduce the results of a chemical test for intoxication.' " Frazier v. City of Montgomery , 565 So.2d 1255 , [1257] (Ala.Crim.App. 1990). "Thus, under subsection (a)(2), the appellant may have had to defend against the results of the blood alcohol test if the State had chosen to introduce them into evidence. We fail to see how the appellant can claim that he did not have reasonable notice of the charge against him or that there was a variance between the complaint and the proof at trial. The State established a prima facie case under § 32-5A-191 (a)(2), Code of Alabama 1975. Se”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bexley v. State · 630 So. 2d 163 - Medley v. State

2. ““the UTTC under which Keith was charged provided that Keith “ ‘[d]id unlawfully operate a motor vehicle or other vehicle at or near CR-39 within the County of Autauga at or near CR-39 ALT in violation of Section 32-5A-191(A)l/2 (Code of Alabama, 1975) duly adopted and in force at the time the offense was committed more particularly described as: “ ‘Did drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle while there was 0.08% or more by weight of alcohol in his/her blood and/or while under the influence of alcohol.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thomas · 630 So. 2d 163 - Medley v. State

3. “The UTTC in this case, by reference to the § 32-5A-191 (a)(2) and by describing the offense by tracking the language of (a)(1), charged the appellant under both subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2). Thus, in attempting to prove that the appellant was guilty of driving under the influence, the State had the option of proving either that he was 'under the influence of alcohol' or that his blood alcohol content was more than .10 percent. However, prior to trial, the district [attorney] stated that he was proceeding under (a)(2). Under subsection (a)(2), " 'the prosecution must prove that the defendant "was under the influence of alcohol [i.e., that he had consumed alcohol] to the extent that it affected his ability to operate his vehicle in a safe manner.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 630 So. 2d 163 - Medley v. State