585 So. 2d 223 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"When the evidence, which was the subject of the motion in limine, was proffered at trial, the appellant failed to object. An objection was necessary to preserve error because the trial court in no way foreclosed later discussion of the issue after denying the motion. " 'In Phillips v. State , 527 So.2d 154 (Ala. 1988), our Supreme Court held the following: " ' "It is the law 'that an appellant who suffers an adverse ruling on a motion to exclude evidence (or other matters, e.g., argument of counsel) made in limine , preserves this adverse ruling for post-judgment and appellate review only if he objects to the introduction of the proffered evidence or other matters and assigns specific grounds therefor at the time of trial, unless he has obtained express acquiescence of the trial judge that such subsequent objection to evidence proffered at trial and assignment of grounds therefor are not necessary. See C. Gamble, The Motion in Limine: A Pretrial Procedure That Has Come of Age , 33 Ala. L. Rev. 1 (1981).' Liberty National Life Ins Co. v. Beasley , 466 So.2d 935 , 936 (Ala. 1985)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Colbert v. State

2. “'A party who suffers an adverse ruling on a motion in limine can preserve the ruling for post judgment and appellate review only by objecting to the introduction of the proffered evidence and assigning specific grounds at the time of trial, unless he or she obtains the express acquiescence of the trial judge that a subsequent objection and assignment of grounds are not necessary.' Bullock v. State , 586 So.2d 284 , 285 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), quoting Parks v. State , 587 So.2d 1012 (Ala. 1991) (emphasis in original). " ' "In the instant case, counsel failed not only to object at trial to the references of which he now complains, but also failed to obtain the express acquiescence of the court that would make an objection at trial unnecessary. This issue is therefore not preserved for appellate review.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sheely v. State

3. “This court has consistently held that a trial court's oral charge to the jury must be viewed in its entirety and not in `bits and pieces.' Parks v. State , 565 So.2d 1265 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); Williams v. State , 538 So.2d 1250 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988); Lambeth v. State , 380 So.2d 923 (Ala.), on remand, 380 So.2d 925 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), writ denied, 380 So.2d 926 (Ala. 1980).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 908 So. 2d 273 - Smith v. State