Pace v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' House v. State , 380 So.2d 940 , 943 (Ala. 1979). Compare Ex parte Hightower , 443 So.2d 1272 (Ala. 1983) (fatal variance between indictment charging sexual misconduct without consent and proof of sexual misconduct with consent obtained by artifice.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 697 So. 2d 800 - Moore v. State · 953 So. 2d 1275 - Shouldis v. State

2. “" 'One of the functions of an indictment is to adequately inform the accused of the crime charged so that a defense may be prepared. Ex parte Washington , 448 So.2d 404 , 407 (Ala. 1984). A variance in the form of the offense charged in the indictment and the proof presented at trial is fatal if the proof offered by the State is of a different crime, or of the same crime, but under a set of facts different from those set out in the indictment. Ex parte Hightower , 443 So.2d 1272 , 1274 (Ala. 1983).' " Ex parte Hamm , 564 So.2d 469 , 471 (Ala.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1008 , 111 S.Ct. 572 , 112 L.Ed.2d 579 (1990). " '. . . "[T]here must be material variance between indictment and proof before a conviction will be overturned for that reason." Ex parte Collins , 385 So.2d 1005 , 1009 (Ala. 1980) (emphasis in original). "The law of this state is well settled that '[t]here is no material variance where there is proof of so much of an indictment as shows the defendant committed a substantial offense specified therein.' " House v. State , 380 So.2d 940 , 943 (Ala. 1979). Compare Ex parte Hightower , 443 So.2d 1272 (Ala. 1983) (fatal variance between indictment charging sexual misconduct without consent and proof of sexual misconduct with consent obtained by artifice.)' " Lipham v. State , 616 So.2d 396 , 397 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 697 So. 2d 800 - Moore v. State

3. “'If an indictment alleges the means by which an offense is committed, it must be substantially, although not literally, proven as alleged. If it alleges that the defendant killed the deceased with a knife, it is sufficient if the substance of the allegation be proven; i.e., proof that he killed him with a razor, or an instrument of like kind and character, would be sufficient. Or, if the allegation be that he killed him with a gun, proof that he killed him with a pistol would support it. But the allegation that he killed him by cutting him with a knife would not be supported by proof that he shot him with a pistol or threw him against a barbed wire fence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 706 So. 2d 787 - Mitchell v. State