675 So. 2d 100 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`"Assertions of counsel in an unverified motion for a new trial are bare allegations and cannot be considered as evidence or proof of the facts alleged."' Ingram v. State , 629 So.2d 800 , 804 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993) (quoting Smith v. State , 364 So.2d 1 , 14 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978)). Accord Arnold v. State , 601 So.2d 145 , 154 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992); see also Similton v. State , 672 So.2d 1363 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995). `There is no error in a trial court's denial of a motion for new trial where no evidence is offered in support of that motion.' Arnold , 601 So.2d at 154 . Furthermore, although the state did not answer the allegations in the motion for a new trial and although the motion was denied by operation of law, since the motion for a new trial is not supported by an affidavit or any other evidence and the grounds relied on in the motion are not shown by the record, `it is unnecessary for this court to reverse and remand this case to the trial court for a hearing on the appellant's allegations . . . contained in the motion for new trial.' Similton , supra , 672 So.2d at 1366 ; see Hill v. State , 675 So.2d 484 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995). The denial of the motion for a new trial is due to be upheld."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 819 So. 2d 643 - Rogers v. State · 860 So. 2d 367 - Finney v. State