Ball v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Consent searches are part of the standard investigatory techniques of law enforcement agencies. They normally occur on the highway, or in a person's home or office, and under informal and unstructured conditions. The circumstances that prompt the initial request to search may develop quickly or be a logical extension of investigative police questioning. The police may seek to investigate further suspicious circumstances or to follow up leads developed in questioning persons at the scene of a crime.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hale · State v. Rodgers

2. “". . . [Section 13A-12-231 (10)] by its wording makes § 13A-12-231 applicable to all sections, including the habitual felony offender section of Title 13A. Sentencing guidelines for a Class A felony are found in § 13A-5-6 , Code of Alabama 1975. "The minimum penalties and fines to which a defendant is to be sentenced when he has violated one of the drug trafficking sections are found in the subsections of § 13A-12-231 . This court in State v. Drewry , 519 So.2d 591 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), had occasion to interpret the predecessor statute, § 20-2-80 , when interpreting § 20-2-81 (now § 13A-12-232 ). As Judge Bowen wrote, ' "The legislature obviously intended that all persons convicted of trafficking would receive a minimum mandatory sentence . . . and that the sentence would be served. " ' 519 So.2d at 593-94 . "The 'mandatory minimum sentences' provided in § 13A-12-231 are the sentences *Page 863 that a person convicted of trafficking in a controlled substance must serve in prison. For example, if an individual has been sentenced under § 13A-12-231 (2)(a) to a split sentence totaling 10 years, he must serve 3 years in prison before he is allowed probation for the remainder of the sentence. We note that the sentences listed in subsections of § 13A-12-231 do not apply if an individual has rendered substantial assistance to the state in bringing about the arrest of persons involved in drugs, and the district attorney has filed a motion pursuant to § 13A-12-232 (b) to have the indivi”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rokitski v. State · 660 So. 2d 1024 - Cantu v. State

3. ““ ‘[W]hen conflicting evidence is presented on the issue of the voluntariness of a consent to search and the trial judge finds that the consent was voluntarily given, great weight must be given his judgment. This finding will not be disturbed on appeal unless the appellate court is convinced that the conclusion is palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence. Even where there is credible testimony to the contrary, if the evidence is fairly capable of supporting the inference that the rules of freedom and voluntariness were observed, the ruling of the trial judge need only be supported by substantial evidence and not to a moral certainty. Sullivan v. State, 340 So.2d 878, 880-881 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 340 So.2d 881 (Ala.1976).’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rokitski v. State · 637 So. 2d 229 - Cook v. State