623 So. 2d 432 - Nelson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Generally, questioning of a patient-suspect in the hospital does not amount to custodial interrogation when the suspect is not under formal arrest. 3 W. Ringel, Searches and Seizures, Arrests and Confessions § 27.-3(a)(3) at 27-16 (2d ed. 1992). `[T]he particular detention or restriction of movement [of a hospital patient-suspect] must rise to the level of a de facto arrest before an individual will be deemed `in custody' for purposes of Miranda .' People v. Ripic , 182 A.D.2d 226 , 587 N.Y.S.2d 776 , 779 (1992), appeal dismissed, 81 N.Y.2d 776 , 594 N.Y.S.2d 712 , 610 N.E.2d 385 (1993). `[C]onfinement to a hospital bed is insufficient alone to constitute custody.' People v. Miller , 829 P.2d 443 , 445 (Colo.App. 1991). See also United States v. Martin , 781 F.2d 671 (9th Cir. 1985) (accused, who had been making bombs in his apartment, had been injured in explosion, and had gone to hospital, was not `in custody' when officers went to hospital and questioned him); State v. Clappes , 117 Wis.2d 277 , 344 N.W.2d 141 , 145-46 (1984) (accused, who was questioned by police officers in the hospital following an automobile accident, was not `in custody' because, although he was surrounded by an `atmosphere of restraint,' the restraint was not `created by the [law enforcement] authorities')."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Creque v. State · State v. Thomas

2. “'[A] defendant's confession [i]s not involuntarily made merely because he was in pain as a result of a gunshot wound at the time he made his confession.' Holladay v. State , 549 So.2d 122 , 127 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988) ('although the appellant's wounds were possibly life-threatening, [the police officer testified that] the appellant was conscious, alert, and responsive' when he made his statement), affirmed, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1989) ; Klingel v. State , 518 So.2d 853 , 856 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987) (same); Thompson v. State , 462 So.2d 777 , 778-79 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984) (fact that defendant's statement was made while he was in pain at hospital did not render confession involuntary). "Statements made under the influence of sedatives, pain-killers, or other drugs are voluntary unless the drug renders 'the mind of the defendant ... substantially impaired ... [so] as to make [the] individual unconscious of the meaning of his words.' Watkins v. State , 495 So.2d 92 , 99 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986). The trial court was warranted in finding that the appellant did not establish that he was under the influence of Demerol to the degree that it rendered his statements involuntary. See Cleckler v. State , 570 So.2d 796 , 804 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990) ; Holladay v. State , 549 So.2d 122 , 127 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988), affirmed, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1989) ; Cross v. State , 536 So.2d 155 , 158-59 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988).”

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

3. “The findings of the trial court as to the voluntariness of a confession, following a hearing held outside the presence of the jury, will not be disturbed on appeal unless 'manifestly contrary to the great weight of the evidence.' Ex parte Matthews , 601 So.2d 52 , 53 (Ala.), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1206 , 112 S.Ct. 2996 , 120 L.Ed.2d 872 (1992).”

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