585 So. 2d 261 - Inmon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`The general rule is that consistency between the verdicts on the separate counts of a multicount indictment is not required.' Moss v. State, 536 So.2d 129, 136 (Ala.Cr.App.1988). "`A defendant convicted by a jury on one count cannot attack that conviction on the ground that it is inconsistent with the jury's verdict of acquittal on another count. Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 , 52 S.Ct. 189 , 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932). "`"The general rule is that there need be no rational compatibility or consistency between the verdicts on the several counts of an indictment. The exception to this rule is where the jury returns multiple convictions as to crimes which are mutually exclusive of each other. Conway v. State, 489 So.2d 641, 642 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (Verdicts of not guilty by kidnapping and guilty of felony-murder were mutually exclusive. Verdicts of not guilty of intentional murder but guilty of manslaughter and guilty of felony-murder were not mutually exclusive.). See also Smelcher v. State, 520 So.2d 229, 232 (Ala.Cr.App.1987) (verdicts of guilty of rape but not guilty of sodomy [when victim testified that defendant raped and sodomized her] not inconsistent); Oden v. State, 41 Ala.App. 212, 215 , 127 So.2d 380 (1961) (`On review we cannot treat the two counts as charging an indivisible crime or even yoked offenses.' No error found because a conviction for making or distilling alcoholic liquors and acquittal for possession of a still)."' " Grikis v. State, 552 So.2d 187 (Ala.Cr.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lackey v. State · 851 So. 2d 103 - Fitch v. State

2. “A statement is not hearsay if ... [t]he declarant testifies at the trial ... and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is ... cqnsis-tent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.” . Our conclusion regarding the necessity of consistency is supported by the cases underpinning Inmon . This Court in Inmon stated that “if [a] victim 'has been subjected to cross-examination calculated to reflect upon her credibility as a witness,' the details of her complaint are admissible for the purpose of corroborating her testimony on direct examination.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. J.D.W. v. State · Register v. State

3. “"`The general rule is that "[t]he criterion for admission of expert testimony is that the witness, by study, practice, experience, or observation as to the particular subject, should have acquired a knowledge beyond that of ordinary witnesses."' Bird v. State, 594 So.2d 676 [644] (Ala.Cr.App.1990) (quoting White v. State, 294 Ala. 265, 271 , 314 So.2d 857, 862 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 951 , 96 S.Ct. 373 , 46 L.Ed.2d 288 (1975)).... The trial court acted within its discretion in determining that the ... testimony `enlightened the jury in an area beyond the average lay person's knowledge and assisted it in arriving at the truth.' Lee v. State, 565 So.2d at 1156."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 779 So. 2d 1225 - Ingram v. State · 911 So. 2d 1052 - Ex Parte Layton