689 So. 2d 894 - Gentry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The victim, Kimberly Diane Hill, and the appellant, who were involved in an affair, worked together at the Bank Operations Center of AmSouth Bank of Birmingham; the appellant was the shift manager and the victim's supervisor. On January 12, 1989, the day preceding the murder, they were to work the evening shift from 4:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. The appellant was married and had two children; Hill was a 24-year-old divorcee with no children. She had given the appellant keys to her apartment, and he was frequent visitor there. Hill became pregnant as a result of the relationship, and the appellant promised to divorce his wife and to marry her. On the day of the murder, the appellant complained of being ill, left work early, and went to Hill's apartment, where he removed his work clothes and put on a pair of `camouflage fatigues.' He waited in the dark for Hill to come home. When she entered the apartment, he grabbed her, beat her, and stabbed her repeatedly with a knife he had obtained from the kitchen. Then, when he observed that she was still moving, he bound her hands and feet with telephone cords and stuffed a towel down her throat. Before the appellant left the apartment, he opened the patio door, dumped the contents of Hill's purse on the floor, removed two rings from her fingers, and took other items from her jewelry box in an effort to make the crime appear as a `robbery attempt.' After leaving the apartment, the appellant discarded the `camouflage fatigues' and jewelry in v”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 727 So. 2d 141 - State v. Gentry · 689 So. 2d 916 - Ex Parte Gentry

2. “"`It has long been the law in Alabama that "[p]hotographs which show the external wounds in the body of a deceased victim, even though they are cumulative and based on undisputed matters, are admissible. The fact that they are gruesome is not grounds to exclude them so long as they shed light on the issues being tried. Burton v. State , 521 So.2d 91 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987). See also Kinder v. State , 515 So.2d 55 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). The fact that a photograph is gruesome and ghastly is no reason to exclude it from evidence, so long as the photograph has some relevancy to the proceedings, even if the photograph may tend to inflame the jury. Magwood v. State , 494 So.2d 124 , 141 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). See also Hutto v. State , 465 So.2d 1211 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Jones v. State , 439 So.2d 776 , (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Godbolt v. State , 429 So.2d 1131 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982).'"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gissendanner v. State · 814 So. 2d 899 - Ward v. State

3. “"[W]e ruled against him, Gentry v. State , 595 So.2d 548 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), cert. denied, 595 So.2d 548 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), relying on Moss v. State , 536 So.2d 129 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), and Minshew v. State , 542 So.2d 307 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988). We held in Gentry that even if the entry was consensual, a burglary charge could be supported by a nonconsensual remaining and the fact that the victim terminated the appellant's license or privilege to remain on the premises can be inferred where, as here, a struggle took place and the victim was beaten. We further held that the trial court properly submitted to the jury the issue of whether the appellant entered or remained unlawfully in the victim's apartment. The evidence presented at both trials is substantially the same. No new evidence was presented in the second trial of the case that would cause us to change our earlier opinion on this issue. The authorities cited by the appellant on this second appeal in support of his contention are no more persuasive than those cited on his first appeal. We reaffirm and adopt our prior holding on this issue. The trial court's denial of the motion for a judgment of acquittal on this ground was proper. The trial court properly submitted the issue to the jury."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 689 So. 2d 916 - Ex Parte Gentry