585 So. 2d 182 - Cox v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 34 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`It is essential to constitute jeopardy that the court in which the accused is put upon his trial shall have jurisdiction. If it is without jurisdiction, there can be no valid conviction, and hence there is no jeopardy.' Benjamin F. Cox v. State , 585 So.2d 182 , 192 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991), (quoting Anthony G. Cox v. State , 462 So.2d 1047 , 1051 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985))."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Hamilton v. State · 870 So. 2d 762 - Cogman v. State

2. “' "The standard for appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in a case such as this one was aptly set out in Dolvin v. State , 391 So.2d 133 (Ala. 1980): " ' " ' "In reviewing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, this court must view that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The test to be applied is whether the jury might reasonably find that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; not whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but guilt, but whether a jury might reasonably so conclude. United States v. Black , 497 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. McGlamory , 441 F.2d 130 (5th Cir. 1971); Clark v. United States , 293 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1961). " ' " ' "[W]e must keep in mind that the test to be applied is not simply whether in the opinion of the trial judge or the appellate court the evidence fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt; but rather whether the jury might so conclude. Harper v. United States , 405 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1969); Roberts v. United States , 416 F.2d 1216 (5th Cir. 1969). . . . *Page 1206 " ' ". . . . " ' "In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction, this court must accept as true the evidence introduced by the State, accord the State all legitimate inferences therefrom, and consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Harris v. State · 662 So. 2d 1201 - Langham v. State

3. ““ ‘ “Circumstantial evidence alone is enough to support a guilty verdict of the most heinous crime, provided the [factfin-der] believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.” White v. State, 294 Ala. 265, 272 , 314 So.2d 857 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 951 , 96 S.Ct. 373 , 46 L.Ed.2d 288 (1975). “Circumstantial evidence is in nowise considered inferior evidence and is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence provided it points to the guilt of the accused.” Cochran v. State, 500 So.2d 1161,1177 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), affirmed in pertinent part, reversed in part on other grounds, Ex parte Cochran, 500 So.2d 1179 (Ala.1985). “It is not necessary for a conviction that the defendant be proved guilty to the ‘exclusion of every possibility of innocence.’ ” “The facts and circumstances in evidence, if dissevered and disconnected, may be weak and inconclusive; but their probative force, when combined, as it was the province of the [factfinder] to combine them ... may have satisfied [it] of the guilt of the defendant.” Howard v. State, 108 Ala. 571 , 18 So. 813 , 815 (1895).’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. D.B. v. State · 662 So. 2d 1201 - Langham v. State