696 So. 2d 295 - Webb v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`"Such facts as the defendant's presence in connection with his companionship, his conduct at, before, and after the commission of the act, are potent circumstances from which participation may be inferred." Sanders v. State, 423 So.2d 348, 351 (Ala.Crim. App.1982). However, "`"`[t]he mere fact that a person witnesses a crime does not make him an accomplice.' Nelson v. State, 405 So.2d 392, 397 (Ala.Cr.App.1980), reversed on other grounds, 405 So.2d 401 (Ala.1981). `The mere presence of a person at the time and place of a crime is not sufficient to justify his conviction for the commission of the crime.' Dolvin v. State, 391 So.2d 129, 133 (Ala.Cr.App.1979), reversed, 391 So.2d 133 (Ala.1980). However, `if presence at the time and place a crime is committed, in conjunction with other facts and circumstances, tends to connect the accused with the commission of the crime, then the [trier of fact] may find the accused guilty.' Dolvin, 391 So.2d at 137. `[P]resence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense are circumstances from which one's participation in the criminal intent may be inferred.' 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 88(2)(d) (1961). Gibson v. State, 49 Ala.App. 18, 20 , 268 So.2d 49 (1972). "`".... "`"Although mere presence at the time and place of a crime is not sufficient to justify a conviction for the commission of that crime, presence is a factor to be considered by the [trier of fact] in determining the guilt of the accused because `mere presence does est”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State · Woods v. State

2. “"`Although mere presence at the time and place of a crime is not sufficient to justify a conviction for the commission of that crime, presence is a factor to be considered by the [trier of fact] in determining the guilt of the accused because "mere presence does establish a `material fact, which is the opportunity of defendant to commit the *Page 429 offense.'" German [v. State] , 429 So.2d [1138,] 1141 [(Ala.Crim.App. 1982)]. "`To make one accused of a crime an accomplice, "the State must adduce some legal evidence implying that he either recruited, helped or counseled in preparing the [crime] or took or undertook some part in its commission. Criminal agency in another's offense is not shown merely by an exhibition of passivity." Pugh v. State , 42 Ala.App. 499 , 502 , 169 So.2d 27 (1964).' " Payne v. State , 487 So.2d 256 , 261-62 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986). See also Webb v. State , 696 So.2d 295 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996)."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Woods v. State · 891 So. 2d 423 - Buford v. State

3. “"Although mere presence at the time and place of a crime is not sufficient to justify a conviction for the commission of that crime, presence is a factor to be considered by the jury in determining the guilt of the accused because `mere presence does establish a "material fact, which is the opportunity of defendant to *Page 152 commit the offense."' German [v. State ], 429 So.2d [1138 ,] 1141 [(Ala.Crim.App. 1982)]. "To make one accused of a crime an accomplice, `the State must adduce some legal evidence implying that he either recruited, helped or counseled in preparing the [crime] or took or undertook some part in its commission. Criminal agency in another's offense is not shown merely by an exhibition of passivity.' Pugh v. State , 42 Ala. App. 499 , 502 , 169 So.2d 27 (1964)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 854 So. 2d 145 - Harris v. State