683 So. 2d 1027 - Windsor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In this case, however, there was no evidence that the appellant was intoxicated. Although there was evidence that the appellant had been drinking beer on the day of the robbery-murder, there was no evidence concerning the quantity of beer he consumed that day at the time of the murder. Evidence that someone was drinking an alcoholic beverage is not evidence that that person was intoxicated. There was no `reasonable theory' to support an instruction on intoxication because there was no evidence of intoxication. The court did not err in not instructing the jury on intoxication and manslaughter where there was no evidence that the appellant was intoxicated at the time the robbery-murder occurred."”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stephens v. State · Maples v. State

2. “Robbery is an offense against the person. . . .”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Craig v. State · McPherson v. State

3. “" ' "Evidence of the accused's commission of another crime is admissible if such other crime is inseparably connected with or is a part of the res gestae of the now-charged crime. This rule is often expressed in terms of the other crime and the now-charged crime being parts of one continuous transaction or one continuous criminal occurrence." C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence (3d ed. 1977), § 69.01(3). See also Orr v. State , 462 So.2d 1013 , 1015 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). "Evidence of other crimes is properly admissible as part of the res gestae if all of the criminal acts are part of one continuous criminal adventure by the same party occurring within a matter of hours. Miller v. State , 405 So.2d 41 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981). *Page 1053 See also Moseley v. State , 357 So.2d 390 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978); Summers v. State , 348 So.2d 1126 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 1136 (Ala. 1977)." Pettaway v. State , 494 So.2d 884 , 886 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). In the present case, this evidence "was intimately connected with the same transaction which is the basis of the State's case. . . . The decision whether to allow or not to allow evidence of collateral crimes or acts as part of the State's case-in-chief rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge." Blanco v. State , 515 So.2d 115 , 120 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), and cases cited therein. "The trial court did not err in overruling appellant's objection to the admission of such evidence. No matter how many distinct crimes may be involved, a”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 683 So. 2d 1042 - Ex Parte Windsor · 710 So. 2d 1276 - Williams v. State