647 So. 2d 81 - Wasp v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““' “In most cases there is no direct testimony of the receiver’s actual belief. Proof thereof must therefore be inferred from the circumstances surrounding his receipt of the stolen property.” [W.] LaFave [& A. Scott, Criminal Law 686 (1972) ]. Guilty knowledge may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the entire transaction concerning the accused’s acquisition of the stolen property. Tombrello v. State, 431 So.2d 1355, 1357 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); Tyree v. State, 407 So.2d 580, 581 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). “ ‘[Gjuilty knowledge may be inferred from the fact that the receiver purchased the goods for very much less than their value.’ Fulton v. State, 8 Ala.App. 257, 263 , 62 So. 959 (1913).” Tyree, 407 So.2d at 581 . “[A] very inadequate purchase price is a factor which points towards appellant’s guilt.” Fillmore v. State, 647 S.W.2d 300, 303-04 (Tex.App.1982).’ “Ashurst v. State, 462 So.2d 999, 1004 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). See also Sankey v. State, 568 So.2d 366, 369 (Ala.Cr.App.1990). [[Image here]] “ 'The term “recently stolen,” by its very nature, is relative in concept— both as to the passage of time and the type of property involved. It is determined upon the facts of each case and, depending upon the particular circumstances, may vary from a few days to many months. Haynes v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 335 So.2d 203 (1976). The remoteness has regard additionally to the particular factors and considerations surrounding each case. Hence, it is not feasible to state a fixe”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Little v. State · 683 So. 2d 22 - Cooper v. State

2. “‘““The possession of recently stolen property by the accused places upon him the burden of explaining that possession to the satisfaction of the jury.... ‘Whether the explanation offered is credible or satisfactory is a question for the jury.’ ” Carlisle v. State, 465 So.2d 1205, 1206 (Ala.Cr.App.1984) (citations omitted). “The reasonableness of the explanation given by one in possession of recently stolen property is to be determined from all of the circumstances, and, if reasonable people can come to a different conclusion on the subject, the question of whether the explanation is reasonable is one to be determined by the jury.” Ford v. State, 383 So.2d 601, 603 (Ala.Cr.App.1980).’ “McClellan v. State, 628 So.2d 1026, 1029 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). The accused’s knowledge that the property was stolen may be proved by his declarations and admissions. Cf. Shaneyfelt v. State, 494 So.2d 804, 806 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (“ ‘the accused’s knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance may be proved by ‘his declarations, or admissions, and contradictory statements, and explanations made by him’ ”). “ ‘ “In most cases there is no direct testimony of the receiver’s actual belief. Proof thereof must therefore be inferred from the circumstances surrounding his receipt of the stolen property.” [W.] LaFave [ & A Scott, Criminal Law 686 (1972)]. Guilty knowledge may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the entire transac tion concerning the accused’s acquisition of the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 683 So. 2d 22 - Cooper v. State

3. “"If a person ... [possesses goods or property which have been recently stolen ..., this shall be prima facie evidence that he has the requisite knowledge or belief.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 683 So. 2d 22 - Cooper v. State