620 So. 2d 93 - Maxwell 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. “"The general rule is that '[h]ypothetical questions are correctly presented to expert witnesses if they are based on facts already in evidence or on facts that can be reasonably inferred from the facts in evidence.' Winton v. State , 563 So.2d 22 , 24 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990). See also Pate v. State , 512 So.2d 138 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980); C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 130.01 (4th ed. 1991). "The Alabama Supreme Court in Hollis v. Scott , 516 So.2d 576 , 580 (Ala. 1987), held that 'a properly qualified expert witness may base his opinion upon either facts of which he has firsthand knowledge, or facts in evidence that are assumed in a hypothetical question asked of him.' Hollis. (Emphasis added [in Maxwell ].) 'Of course, it must be shown that the witness has sufficient knowledge of the facts to enable him to form an opinion, and he must testify as to the facts in his own knowledge upon which his opinion is based.' Hollis . "”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ravi v. Coates

2. “"[C]ircumstantial evidence will support a conviction as strongly as direct evidence, provided that the circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused. Jones v. State , 514 So.2d 1060 , 1066 (Ala.[Cr.App.]1987); Cumbo v. State , [368] 386 So.2d [871] 87 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 877 (Ala. 1979). In reviewing a verdict based largely on circumstantial evidence, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state. Wilbourn v. State , 457 So.2d 1001 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). Further, 'it is not the province of this court to reweigh the evidence presented at trial.' Watkins v. State , 565 So.2d 1227 , 1281 [1231] (Ala.Cr.App. 1991 [1990])."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 663 So. 2d 975 - Sims v. State

3. “"Generally, a 'request for jury instructions is a matter of trial strategy and, absent a clear showing of improper or inadequate representation, is to be left to the judgment of counsel.' Parker v. State , 510 So.2d 281 , 286 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987); Haynes v. State , 461 So.2d 869 , 874 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. State