Hergott v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
February 2012
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 585 So. 2d 112 - Ex Parte Bankhead · 370 So. 2d 323 - Winnings v. State · 370 So. 2d 320 - Andrews v. State · Ex Parte Hergott · 426 So. 2d 932 - Lewis v. State
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In this case we have two witnesses who would be classified as accomplices and they were Mr. Linder and Mr. Fletcher. An accomplice is defined to be an associate in crime or a partner or a partaker in guilt. An accomplice is one who is in some way concerned with the commission of a crime. Whether a witness is an accomplice is a question of fact to be determined by the jury where there is a conflict in the evidence on the question. "A conviction for a felony offense cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice, or numerous accomplices, unless such testimony is corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. The rule is that for such other evidence to be sufficient, it must be believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. If such evidence merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof, without connecting the defendant with the commission of the offense, such other evidence is not to be sufficient and the defendant could not be convicted. " If the jury is not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the truth of some of this evidence tending to prove the defendant's guilty connection with the charged felonies, other than the testimony of Mr. Linder or Mr. Fletcher, the jury could not find the defendant guilty. " A conviction of a felony cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense and such evi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"To corroborate means to make more certain, to confirm, or to strengthen. Lewis v. State, 426 So.2d 932 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982), cert. denied, 426 So.2d 938 (Ala. 1983), and the corroborative testimony need not be strong or sufficient in and of itself to support a conviction. Andrews v. State, 370 So.2d 320 (Ala.Cr.App.1979), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 323 (Ala.1979). Corroborative evidence need not directly convict the accused of the crime, but need only tend to do so. Id."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"The purpose of § 12-21-222 was to ensure that the testimony of a guilty party testifying in return for leniency from the state would not alone be sufficient to convict another." Hergott v. State , 639 So.2d 571 , 573 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993).”
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.