631 So. 2d 294 - Walker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Here there was sufficient legal evidence presented by the State to allow the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of this robbery in the first degree. " 'The testimony of the victim of the alleged robbery which was offered to establish the identity of the appellant as one of the alleged robbers presented a jury question on that matter.' " Lomax v. State , 359 So.2d 832 , 835 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 836 (Ala.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 969 , 99 S.Ct. 461 , 58 L.Ed.2d 428 (1978). 'The victim made a positive and unequivocal in-court identification of the appellant. Therefore, whether the appellant was guilty of robbery was a jury question. Vaughn v. State , 57 Ala. App. 134 , 326 So.2d 662 (1976). Testimony of the victim of the alleged robbery which was offered to establish the identity of the defendant as the alleged robber presented a jury question on that issue. Lambert v. State , 55 Ala. App. 669 , 318 So.2d 364 (1975).' Baker v. State , 344 So.2d 547 , 551 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977)."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Edwards v. State · Nunn v. State

2. “"`A trial judge is allowed broad discretion in determining whether a mistrial should be declared because he is in the best position to observe the scenario, to determine its effect upon the jury, and to determine whether the mistrial should be granted.' Dixon v. State, 476 So.2d 1236 , 1240 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). `A mistrial is an extreme measure and should be denied when the prejudicial quality of the comment [or incident] can be eradicated by curative instructions.' Walker v. State, 631 So.2d 294 , 300 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993)."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 726 So. 2d 297 - Berryhill v. State · 819 So. 2d 643 - Rogers v. State

3. “Rebuttal evidence, even evidence of prior crimes, is generally admissible within the sound discretion of the trial court. Vincent v. State, 231 Ala. 657 , 165 So. 844 (1936); Jones v. State, [ 362 So.2d 1303 (Ala.Cr.App.1978)]; Norris v. State, 429 So.2d 649 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 932 So. 2d 923 - Calhoun v. State · 893 So. 2d 488 - Snyder v. State