607 So. 2d 350 - Childers v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In a prosecution for murder, evidence of former acts of hostility between the accused and the victim are admissible as tending to show malice, intent, and ill will on the part of the accused.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stephens v. State · 962 So. 2d 272 - Burgess v. State

2. “"[T]his case is remanded to the trial court with instructions that, unless the parties agree upon the amount of restitution, see Humber v. State , 481 So.2d 452 , 453 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), an evidentiary hearing shall be conducted at which the State is given the opportunity to prove, by legal evidence and by a preponderance of the evidence, the amount of restitution. The appellant, in addition to his counsel, has a right to be present at that hearing. Williams v. State , 506 So.2d 368 , 372 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), cert. denied, 506 So.2d 372 (Ala. 1987). In accordance with Rule 26.11(a), A.R.Crim.P., 'The financial resources and obligations of the defendant and the burden that payment of restitution will impose should be considered in determining how much restitution is to be paid or collected, i.e., whether to be paid by installments and what length of time should be given for payment.' The trial court shall also consider the criteria for determining restitution set out in Ala. Code 1975, § 15-18-68 . At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court shall require the appellant to state any objection he has to 'the imposition, amount or distribution of restitution or the manner or method thereof.' See § 15-18-69 . The trial court shall enter a written order of restitution 'stating its findings and the underlying facts and circumstances thereof' as required by § 15-18-69 . That order shall indicate compliance with § 15-18-68 and Rule 26.11, and shall state the *Page 990 specific am”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jolly v. State · 625 So. 2d 1190 - Hagler v. State

3. “"In a charge of homicide or assault, a threat by the accused to kill or injure the victim is admissible as tending to show a design in the accused to commit the crime, and hence, as tending to show the accused's commission of the crime. Some courts have held such threats admissible as tending to show malice or intent on the part of the accused. While remoteness is always a basis for excluding evidence in extraordinary circumstances as determined within the discretion of the trial court, the decisions reflect that such a threat is admitted no matter how much time has elapsed between it and the homicide or assault. ". . . . "A threat not directed toward the victim is not admissible in a present criminal prosecution. A vague threat against no person in particular, for example, is not admissible against the accused unless accompanied by evidence warranting an inference that the threat was directed against the victim. Although the victim is not named in the threat, if the evidence of other circumstances warrants an inference that it was directed against the victim or a class of which the victim was a member, then the threat is admissible."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 990 So. 2d 931 - McGowan v. State · 777 So. 2d 225 - Drinkard v. State