598 So. 2d 1011 - Tolbert v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We consider Kinder to stand for the proposition that the circuit court is `limited to the consideration of the specific acts, behavior, or subject matter of the offense....' Id. (Emphasis supplied.) `Behavior' and `subject matter' are sufficiently broad to encompass all thefts committed as part of the same factual transaction. Cf. Connolly v. State, 539 So.2d 436 (Ala.Cr.App.1988) (theft of several items as part of same factual and criminal transaction is one offense). All of the items in question were taken from the same victim in the same factual and criminal transaction. The appellant, thus, could have properly been indicted and tried for any offense based on his behavior during the transaction or on the subject matter of murder and theft. Cf. Snodgrass v. State, 273 Ind. 148 , 406 N.E.2d 641, 643 (1980) (`"waiver [of the juvenile court's jurisdiction] ... on one charge ... has equal applicability to lesser-included offenses subsequently charged"') (quoting Simpson v. State, 269 Ind. 495 , 381 N.E.2d 1229, 1232 (1978)); State v. Garcia, 93 N.M. 51 , 596 P.2d 264 (1979) (indictment covering offenses arising from same transaction is proper); State v. Karow, 154 Wis.2d 375 , 453 N.W.2d 181, 184 (Ct.App.1990), review denied, 457 N.W.2d 323 (1990) (allowing `the charging of lesser-included or related crimes once waiver has occurred'). But see Miller v. Quatsoe, 348 F.Supp. 764 (E.D.Wis.1972) (waiver only effective as to specific charge alleged); People v. Hoerle, 3 Mich.App. 6”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. DDA v. State · D.D.A. v. State

2. “"The appellant argues that, according to Kinder , the state was limited to prosecuting him for the specific acts for which the juvenile court found probable cause: murder and theft of an automobile. However, the Alabama Supreme Court has held as follows: "It is well recognized that a transfer hearing is not a hearing to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the child accused of a crime but is, instead, a probable cause hearing to determine whether the child should be transferred out of the juvenile court for criminal prosecution as an adult."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. DDA v. State · D.D.A. v. State

3. “The question of whether a juvenile who has been certified to be tried as an adult can be indicted for capital murder when the juvenile court found probable cause that the juvenile committed noncapital murder has been answered affirmatively by this Court in Kinder v. State , 515 So.2d 55 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 663 So. 2d 1017 - Hogan v. State