Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 629 SO2D 23 - Sheely v. State

Sheely v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 775 So. 2d 857 - Melson v. State (1999), 914 So. 2d 372 - Minor v. State (2004)

33 state decisions

190199320002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Edwards v. Arizona · Ake v. Oklahoma

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

  1. “[A]ny conflicts in the testimony or credibility of witnesses during a suppression hearing is a matter for resolution by the trial court.... Absent a gross abuse of discretion, a trial court's resolution of [such] conflict[s] should not be reversed on appeal.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"[A]lthough the appellant had asserted his right to counsel and questioning had ceased, the evidence indicates that the appellant's statement was given voluntarily when he reinstigated discussion with the police officers. `Volunteered statements are not barred by Miranda. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1629 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). "An unsolicited remark, not in response to any interrogation, does not fall within the Miranda rule." Crawford v. State, 479 So.2d 1349, 1352 (Ala. Cr.App.1985).' Jennings v. State, 588 So.2d 540, 543 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). See also Fisher v. State, 587 So.2d 1027, 1038 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), cert. denied, 587 So.2d 1039 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, [503] U.S. [941], 112 S.Ct. 1486 , 117 L.Ed.2d 628 (1992), citing Smith v. State, 515 So.2d 149, 152 (Ala.Cr.App.1987). See also Bass v. State, 585 So.2d 225, 237 (Ala.Cr.App.1991) (`[t]he evidence shows that the appellant's statements following his arrest were spontaneous and voluntary'); Whittlesey v. State, 586 So.2d 31, 33 (Ala.Cr.App.1991) (`[t]he statement was spontaneous and unsolicited and, therefore, was admissible. See Bedingfield v. State, 47 Ala.App. 677 , 260 So.2d 408 (1972)')."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) The nature of the charge and the material elements of the offense; (2) The mandatory minimum and maximum penalties, including any enhanced sentencing provisions; (3) The fact that the sentence may run consecutively to or concurrently with another sentence; (4) That the defendant has the right to plead not guilty, not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, or to plead both not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, or to plead guilty; (5) That the defendant has the right to remain silent and may not be compelled to testify, but may testify on his or her own behalf; (6) That by pleading guilty the defendant waives the right to trial by jury, the right to confront witness against him or her, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the right to testify and to present evidence on the defendant's own behalf, and the right to subpoena witnesses; and (7) That if the guilty plea is accepted, there will not be a further trial on the issue of the defendant's guilt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.