Ex Parte King’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' King v. State, 707 So.2d 652, 653 (Ala.Cr. App.1996).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. R.L.G. v. State · R.A.S. v. State

2. “"[T]he state says that one of the sexual abuse convictions can properly stand, because given that most of the evidence related to a single incident, there could be no doubt that the jury convicted King on one count on the basis of that incident. Accordingly, the state says, any error in failing to order an election related to the conviction under Count I ... was harmless error. "However, it is pure speculation to suggest that that single incident was the basis of the jury's conviction on one count of sexual abuse. There was evidence at trial of five incidents of sexual abuse. Indeed, the state itself contends that `other incidents of sexual abuse were proven by the prosecutor in this case.' There is simply no way to know which incident or incidents of abuse underpinned the jury's verdict."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. R.A.S. v. State · 712 So. 2d 348 - RLG v. State

3. “"Numerous states that have addressed this issue have moved from a strict approach requiring an absolute election to a dual approach, as mentioned by the Washington Court of Appeals, [ State v. Brown, 55 Wash.App. 738 , 780 P.2d 880 (1989), review denied, 114 Wash.2d 1014 , 791 P.2d 897 (1990)]. The Hawaii Supreme Court has written: "`[T]he defendant's constitutional right to a unanimous verdict is violated unless one or both of the following occurs: (1) at or before the close of its case-in-chief, the prosecution is required to elect the specific act upon which it is relying to establish the "conduct" element of the charged offense; or (2) the trial court gives the jury a specific unanimity instruction, i.e., an instruction that advises the jury that all twelve of its members must agree that the same underlying criminal act has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.' " State v. Arceo, 84 Haw. 1 , 928 P.2d 843, 874-75 (Haw.1996) (footnote omitted). See also, People v. Aldrich, 849 P.2d 821 (Colo. Ct.App.1992); and People v. Jones, 51 Cal.3d 294 , 270 Cal.Rptr. 611 , 792 P.2d 643 (1990)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. R.L.G. v. State · 712 So. 2d 348 - RLG v. State