Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 659 So. 2d 219 - Dockery v. State

659 So. 2d 219 - Dockery v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
April 2011
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 2011

5 state decisions

30199420002010decided

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 473 So. 2d 618 - Spellman v. State · 21 Ala. App. 464 - Patterson v. State · Patterson 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"(a) Character Evidence Generally. Evidence of a person's character or trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: "(1) Character of Accused. Evidence of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same; ". . . . "(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. . . ." [8] It is well settled that "`[g]ood or bad character of the accused is never an issue upon which the state may offer evidence to prove guilt unless the accused has first chosen to make it an issue.' C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 27.02(1) (5th ed.1996) (footnote omitted). `[T]he state cannot initiate the proving of the defendant's bad character to prove his guilt. "In a criminal prosecution, it is generally agreed that the state is not allowed to introduce evidence of the accused's bad character until the accused has first entered evidence of his good character."'"”
    3 later decisions 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.