631 So. 2d 1073 - Britton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence. The fundamental import of the privilege while an individual is in custody is not whether he is allowed to talk to the police without the benefit of warnings and counsel, but whether he can be interrogated. . . . Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by [the holding in Miranda ].'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stewart v. State · Worthington v. State

2. “"Custody and interrogation are the two prerequisites that trigger the need for Miranda warnings. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 477-78 , 86 S.Ct. at 1629-30 . Interrogation has been defined as express questioning or its functional equivalent. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 , 100 S.Ct. 1682 , 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). The functional equivalent of interrogation is `words or actions on the part of the police ... that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.' Id. at 301 , 100 S.Ct. at 1689-90 . Here, the appellant was in custody, but was not being interrogated. His inquiries about the disposition of his vehicle were volunteered. Cowart's comment to the appellant was not in the form of a question directed at the appellant and clearly did not constitute interrogation. Thus, there was no need at that point for Miranda warnings. The trial court properly overruled the objection."”

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

3. “"We find no error in the sentencing procedure. The sentence was legal and within the statutory range. Sentencing is within the exclusive realm of the trial court. Self v. State , 459 So.2d 978 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1053 , 105 S.Ct. 1756 , 84 L.Ed.2d 819 (1985); Brazell v. State , 423 So.2d 323 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); § 13A-5-1 . See also 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law § 1472 (1989)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 686 So. 2d 563 - Read v. State