686 So. 2d 546 - Cooley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Although the conviction was not generally admissible to impeach Channell's credibility because it was not a crime of moral turpitude, Luker v. State , 361 So.2d 1124 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. dismissed , 361 So.2d 1127 (Ala. 1978), in this case Channell 'opened the door' for the admission of his prior conviction by denying that he had ever seen marijuana before. Compare Thomas v. State , 445 So.2d 992 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984) (Although a youthful offender adjudication may not be used to impeach credibility, when the witness opens the door by denying his criminal intent in a case, his prior youthful offender plea of guilty to the same offense is admissible). See generally Peterson v. State , 452 So.2d 1372 , 1375 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), and cases cited therein. ('Rebuttal evidence, even evidence of prior crimes, is generally admissible within the sound discretion of the trial court.')"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ray v. State · 695 So. 2d 644 - Williams v. State

2. “While the Youthful Offender Act is for the protection of the accused, the act cannot be perverted to allow an accused to enter a guilty plea to an offense and then, in a separate but related proceeding against a co-defendant, deny his participation in that same offense. Cf. United States ex rel. Rohrlich v. Fay , 240 F. Supp. 848 (S.D. N.Y. 1965) (where court noted that the New York Youthful Offender Act, which is very similar to the Alabama Youthful Offender Act, would not permit a witness who had been previously adjudged a youthful offender to be 'vouched for to a jury as a saint when in fact he is a sinner'). Under the circumstances of this case, we think that the State's policy interest in protecting the confidentiality of a youthful offender's record must yield to the public's right to the integrity of the judicial system.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 695 So. 2d 644 - Williams v. State

3. “'. . . . " ' "If the evidence is not so remote as to lose its relevancy, the decision to allow or not allow evidence of collateral crimes or acts as part of the State's case-in-chief rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. McGhee v. State , 333 So.2d 865 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976); McDonald v. State , 57 Ala. App. 529 , 329 So.2d 583 (1975), writ quashed, 295 Ala. 410 , 329 So.2d 596 (1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 834 , 97 S.Ct. 99 , 50 L.Ed.2d 99 (1976).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 705 So. 2d 552 - Siler v. State