697 So. 2d 800 - Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The general rule in Alabama is that the acts and declarations of the accused against his interest and having a relation to the offense charged are always competent evidence. In Nicks v. State, 521 So.2d 1018, 1028-29 (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), the defendant had made a statement during a robbery to a victim that, if the victim did not do as he was told, the defendant would kill him `like he did that man up the street.' This Court held that that statement, although concerning a collateral offense, was admissible as a declaration against interest. "`The general rule in this state relative to an accused is that the acts, declarations, and conduct of the accused, against interest, are always competent evidence. Pope v. State, 365 So.2d 369 (Ala.Cr.App.1978); Dockery v. State, 269 Ala. 564 , 114 So.2d 394 (1959); Blackwell v. State, 264 Ala. 553 , 88 So.2d 347 (1956). Any conduct or declaration of an accused having a relation to the offense charged, indicating a consciousness of guilt, is admissible as evidence against him. Conley v. State, 354 So.2d 1172 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). "`In Dockery v. State, supra, the Alabama Supreme Court addressed an issue very similar to the one before us. In Dockery , the trial court allowed the admission of testimony in the defendant's murder trial to the effect that the defendant, during an apparent holdup or assault which was committed shortly after the murder”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 940 So. 2d 331 - Irvin v. State

2. “' House v. State , 380 So.2d 940 , 943 (Ala. 1979). Compare Ex parte Hightower , 443 So.2d 1272 (Ala. 1983) (fatal variance between indictment charging sexual misconduct without consent and proof of sexual misconduct with consent obtained by artifice.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 953 So. 2d 1275 - Shouldis v. State

3. “`apprise [the defendant] with a reasonable certainty of the nature of the accusation against him so that he may,'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 42 So. 3d 146 - ALL v. State