695 So. 2d 70 - Bush v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 110 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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'THE COURT: I've read your [supplementary motion]; and if you want to give me something else I'll read it. If you are going to have ex parte there won't be anybody to cross-examine. If you haven't got any more to say than what you have on Number 3 [supplementary motion re: a ballistics expert], I overrule you; and I will look at whatever else you have got and reconsider if and when you file something.'”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Floyd v. State · Bush v. State

2. “"Evidence of any offense other than that specifically charged is prima facie inadmissible. Nicks v. State , 521 So.2d 1018 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), aff'd, 521 So.2d 1035 (Ala.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1241 , 108 S.Ct. 2916 , 101 L.Ed.2d 948 (1988). However, evidence of collateral crimes or bad acts is admissible as part of the prosecutor's case if the defendant's collateral misconduct is relevant to show his guilt other than by suggesting that he is more likely to be guilty of the charged offense because of his past misdeeds. Nicks v. State ; Brewer v. State , 440 So.2d 1155 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence , § 69.01(1) (4th ed. 1991). Before its probative value will be held to outweigh its potential prejudicial effect, the evidence *Page 214 of a collateral crime must not only be relevant, it must also be reasonably necessary to the state's case, and it must be plain and conclusive. Averette v. State , 469 So.2d 1371 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). If evidence of the accused's commission of another crime is admissible, the state may prove in meticulous detail the manner in which the accused committed such other crime. Nelson v. State , 511 So.2d 225 , 234 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), aff'd, 511 So.2d 248 (Ala. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 1755 , 100 L.Ed.2d 217 (1988); Weatherford v. State , 369 So.2d 863 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 369 So.2d 863 (Ala.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 867 , 100 S.Ct. 141 , 62 L.Ed.2d 91 (1979); McElroy's , § 69.02(8). The generally”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wimberly v. State · R.D.H. v. State

3. “"`In considering what constitutes plain error in a capital case, we have adhered to the interpretation of the term "plain error" adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court, which follows the interpretation given that term by the federal courts. See Ex parte Harrell, 470 So.2d 1309 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 935 , 106 S.Ct. 269 , 88 L.Ed.2d 276 (1985); Ex parte Womack, 435 So.2d 766 (Ala.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986 , 104 S.Ct. 436 , 78 L.Ed.2d 367 (1983). See also Hooks v. State, 534 So.2d 329 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), aff'd, 534 So.2d 371 (Ala.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1050 , 109 S.Ct. 883 , 102 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1989). Plain error is error that has or probably has adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant, Ala.R.App.P. 45A, or is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings. Ex parte Womack. The failure to object at trial weighs against any claim of prejudice an appellant may make. Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.1991).'"”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Knight v. State · Sneed v. State