689 So. 2d 992 - Burrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 2010
8 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 Batson v. Kentucky · Fletcher v. State · 435 So. 2d 158 - Smith v. State · 555 So. 2d 780 - Ex Parte Siebert · 505 So. 2d 1067 - Donahoo v. State
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Proper analysis of a chain of custody question, however, does not begin at the time of the offense; the chain of custody begins when [an] item of evidence is seized by the State. State v. Conrad , 241 Mont. 1 , 785 P.2d 185 (1990); 29A Am.Jur.2d, Evidence § 947 (1994 ed.) ('The chain-of-custody rule does not require the prosecution to account for the possession of evidence before it comes into their hands.'). Anyone who has handled evidence in the State's possession is a `link' in the chain of custody; once the evidence is in the State's possession, it is the State's duty to account for each link. § 12-21-13 , Code of Alabama (1975). See, Ex parte Holton , 590 So.2d 918 , 920 (Ala. 1991)."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Birge v. State · Yeomans v. State“"In this case, Mr. Brown is not a link in the chain for which the State must account. He testified as to his particular actions regarding the gun, and it is the jury's task then to consider how those actions affected the item of evidence in question and how much weight to assign to that item. There is no evidence to contradict the assertion that this gun is [the victim's] gun, which was clearly marked with a serial number and *Page 240 which was registered to her. (R. 595.) The police ultimately received the gun and handled it as they did the rest of the evidence in this case."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Proper analysis of a chain of custody question . . . does not begin at the time of the offense; the chain of custody begins when [an] item of evidence is seized by the State.”
1 later decision 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.