Presley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 35 Ala. App. 384 - Fiorella v. City of Birmingham · 546 So. 2d 1014 - White v. State · 346 So. 2d 1177 - Sexton v. State · 414 So. 2d 998 - Dickerson v. State · 411 So. 2d 819 - Slaughter v. State
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"At best, the defendant has only established the possibility that there were `weak links' in the chain of custody. `Where a weak link in the chain of custody is found, the weight and credit afforded the evidence, rather than its admissibility, is questioned.' Ex parte Williams, 548 So.2d 518, 520 (Ala.1989). The prosecution is not required to `negate the most remote possibility of substitution, alteration, or tampering with the evidence, but rather must prove to a reasonable probability that the item is the same as, and not substantially different from, the object as it existed at the beginning of the chain.' Williams, 548 So.2d at 520 (quoting Ex parte Williams, 505 So.2d 1254, 1255 (Ala.1987)).... "Any conflict in the witnesses' testimony affected the credibility but not the admissibility of that testimony. `[C]onflicts of testimony concerning the chain of custody go to the credibility rather than the admissibility of the evidence.' Lott v. State, 456 So.2d 857, 861 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). Accord, Reed v. State, 547 So.2d 594, 595 (Ala.Cr. App.1988), reversed on other grounds, 547 So.2d 596 (Ala.1989); Carlisle v. State, 533 So.2d 645, 652 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Stevens v. State, 506 So.2d 373, 375-76 (Ala.Cr. App.1986); Slaughter v. State, 411 So.2d 819, 823 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). Compare Battles v. State, 491 So.2d 1025, 1030-32 (Ala. Cr.App.1985) (testimony could not reasonably be reconciled)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“). In this case, the identity and continuity of the possession of the cocaine was sufficiently shown to afford ample assurances of authenticity and integrity. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. All Judges concur. NOTES [1] Rule 1, A.R.Juv.P., provides that when the Rules of Juvenile Procedure or statutes do not specify the procedure to be followed in juvenile court, the Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable. [2]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.