Knotts v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2019 · most notably 695 So. 2d 70 - Bush v. State (1996), 746 So. 2d 364 - Boyd v. State (1999)
55 state decisions
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Beck v. State of Ohio · Estelle v. McGuire · Lockett v. Ohio
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' "In reviewing the reasonable doubt instruction, we do so in the context of the charge as a whole. Victor v. Nebraska ; Baker v. United States , 412 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1018 , 90 S.Ct. 583 , 24 L.Ed.2d 509 (1970) ; Williams v. State , 538 So.2d 1250 (Ala. Cr. App. 1988). So long as the definition of 'reasonable doubt' in the charge correctly conveys the concept of reasonable doubt, the charge will not be considered so prejudicial as to mandate reversal. Victor v. Nebraska ; Holland v. United States , 348 U.S. 121 , 75 S.Ct. 127 , 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The determination of the relevancy of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Borden v. State, 522 So.2d 333 (Ala.Cr.App.1988); C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, 21.01(6) (4th ed.1991). Here, the trial court was required to admit all relevant mitigating evidence of the appellant's character or record and any circumstances pertaining to the offenses. The question before us is whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit evidence pertaining to members of the appellant's family. We find that although the offered evidence may have had some slight probative value, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow its admission under the facts and circumstances existing here. The trial court admitted all records offered for purposes of mitigation pertaining specifically to the appellant. "Furthermore, even if the trial court's ruling was erroneous, we do not believe the error injuriously affected the substantial rights of this appellant. Matters in the excluded records pertaining to the appellant's home and family were admitted in evidence through other records and through the testimony of numerous witnesses, thus making the evidence in the excluded records cumulative. The appellant's sister testified at the sentencing hearing about the home and family life of the appellant. Thus, if error occurred, at all, it was harmless. See Ala. R.App.P. 45; McMahon v. State, 560 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Beckworth v. State · Woods v. State“`If a statute describes a single offense which may be committed in more than one factual manner, or by way of different acts, jury unanimity is not necessary as to the means by which it is committed, where the acts are conceptually similar or not repugnant to each other.'”
2 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.