628 So. 2d 1026 - McClellan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The crime of receiving stolen property is defined as 'intentionally receiv[ing], retain[ing] or dispos[ing] of stolen property knowing that it has been stolen or having reasonable grounds to believe it has been stolen, unless the property is received, retained or disposed of with intent to restore it to the owner.' Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-8-16 (a). 'If a person . . . [p]ossesses goods or property which have been recently stolen . . . this shall be prima facie evidence that he has the requisite knowledge or belief [that the property was stolen].' Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-8-16 (b). 'The possession of recently stolen property by the accused places upon him the burden of explaining that possession to the satisfaction of the jury. . . . "Whether the explanation offered is credible or satisfactory is a question for the jury." ' Carlisle v. State , 465 So.2d 1205 , 1206 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984) (citations omitted). 'The reasonableness of the explanation given by one in possession of recently stolen property is to be determined from all of the circumstances, and, if reasonable people can come to a different conclusion on the subject, the question of whether the explanation is reasonable is one to be determined by the jury.' Ford v. State , 383 So.2d 601 , 603 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 647 So. 2d 81 - Wasp v. State