Atkisson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 2012
7 state decisions
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 Fuller v. State · Spicer v. State · Lee v. State · Terry v. State · 505 So. 2d 1067 - Donahoo 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule regarding admissibility of prior misconduct by a criminal defendant has been well stated in C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 69.01(1) (3rd ed.1977): “ ‘This is a general exclusionary rule which prevents the introduction of [collateral] criminal acts for the sole purpose of suggesting that the accused is more likely to be guilty of the crime in question. This rule is generally applicable whether the other crime was committed before or after the one for which the defendant is presently being tried. “ ‘This exclusionary rule is simply an application of the character rule which forbids the state to prove the accused’s bad character by particular deeds. The basis for the rule lies in the belief that the prejudicial effect of [collateral] crimes will far outweigh any probative value that might be gained from them. Most agree that such evidence of [collaterál] crimes has almost an irreversible impact upon the minds of the jurors.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"`[Motive and intent] are not the same in law. "Intent" is the ripened purpose to effect a result; while "motive" is the moving power which leads the mind to desire the result and form the purpose. The intent must exist in all cases. If a crime is clearly shown to have been committed by the accused, as in case of one intentionally and without cause striking a deadly blow with an axe, the question of motive would be of little importance. But where the direct evidence is in conflict as to whether the accused did the act, or is partially or wholly circumstantial upon that issue, the question of motive becomes a leading inquiry.'"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“evidence of the collateral offenses by the appellant was admissible pursuant to the motive and intent exceptions to the general exclusionary rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hulsey v. State
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.