710 So. 2d 480 - Weaver 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. “"Rule 9.3(a), Ala.R.Crim.P., authorizes the trial court to exclude potential witnesses from the courtroom prior to or during proceedings. The Committee Comments to Rule 9.3(a) state that `the power to exclude and separate witnesses is entirely a matter of discretion with the trial court.' The Comments cite Teague v. State, 245 Ala. 339 , 16 So.2d 877 (1944); and Beddow v. State, 39 Ala.App. 29 , 96 So.2d 175 (1956), cert. denied, 266 Ala. 694 , 96 So.2d 178 (1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 930 , 78 S.Ct. 412 , 2 L.Ed.2d 414 (1958). `"Investigators or police officers commonly are exempted from the rule." J. Colquitt, Alabama Law of Evidence § 6.15 at 333 (1990). See also C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 286.01 (4th ed.1991). See also Rule 9.3, Ala.R.Crim.P.' Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36, 66 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 , 116 S.Ct. 928 , 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996). `Alabama appellate courts have time and again refused to hold it an abuse of discretion on the part of a trial court to allow a sheriff, police chief, or similarly situated person who will later testify to remain in the courtroom during trial.' Ex parte Lawhorn, 581 So.2d 1179, 1181 (Ala.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 970 , 112 S.Ct. 445 , 116 L.Ed.2d 463 (1991) (citing several Alabama cases holding to same effect)."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hodges v. State · 777 So. 2d 781 - Whitehead v. State

2. ““This Court has recognized the importance of affording children the additional right in Rule 11(B)(4), stating: “ ‘Informing the child of his right to communicate with a parent or guardian serves two important purposes. First, “[t]his simple warning will give the juvenile the opportunity to obtain the guidance necessary in order for him to evaluate his rights.” Ex parte Whisenant, 466 So.2d at 1012 . (Torbert, C.J., concurring in pertinent part). Secondly, the rule recognizes that “the parent or guardian may be the conduit through which the juvenile secures an attorney.” Id.’ “Payne v. State, 487 So.2d 256, 259 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), quoted in L.J.V. v. State, 545 So.2d 240, 245 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). “ ‘ “The rationale of courts holding a child’s request to see a parent equivalent to a request to see an attorney ... is that, while an adult in trouble normally requests an attorney’s assistance, a child logically expresses his desire for help and his unwillingness to proceed alone by requesting a parent’s presence.... [I]n the case of a child, the right to assistance of counsel is hollow unless a parent is present, for a parent is normally the child’s only avenue through which to evaluate and exercise the right to counsel.” “ ‘[Samuel M. Davis, Rights of Juveniles § 8.13 at 3-64.5 (2d ed.1991) ].’ “E.C. v. State, 623 So.2d 364, 368 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Ward v. State

3. “"Although we have held that [the appellant's] confession was wrongfully admitted into evidence, our analysis does not end. The question becomes: Was the receipt of the confession into evidence harmless error? See Coral [v. State ], 628 So.2d [954 ] at 973 [(Ala.Crim.App. 1992)]; Smith v. State , 623 So.2d 369 , 372 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1030 , 114 S.Ct. 650 , 126 L.Ed.2d 607 (1993). `In order for a constitutional error to be deemed harmless under Chapman [v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)], the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. In order for the error to be deemed harmless under Rule 45[, Ala.R.App.P.], the state must establish that the error did not injuriously affect the appellant's substantial rights.' Coral , 628 So.2d at 973."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Carlton v. State