Wigfall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[Beemon] whose name is otherwise unknown to the Grand Jury, did, in the course of committing a theft of lawful currency and/or coinage of the United States of America and/or other property, of some value, a better description of which is unknown to the Grand Jury, use force against the person of the owner or any person present, Lalita Patel and/or Mayank Patel and/or Shanashi Patel and/or Praful Patel, with intent to overcome their physical resistance or physical power of resistance, or threaten the imminent use of force against the person of the owner or any person present, Lalita Patel and/or Mayank Patel and/or Shanashi Patel and/or Praful Patel, with the intent to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property, while the said Terrence Beemon, alias, and/or an accomplice was armed and/or represented himself to be armed with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, a gun, a better description of which is unknown to the Grand Jury, in violation of section 13A-8 — 41 of the Code of Alabama, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 75 So. 3d 687 - Terrence Beemon v. State of Alabama.

2. ““ ‘In determining whether to treat a defendant as a youthful offender, the trial court has nearly absolute discretion. Morgan v. State, 363 So.2d 1013 (Ala.Cr.App.1978); see also, Ex parte. Farrell, 591 So.2d 444, 449-50, n. 3 (Ala.1991). There is no .set method for .considering a motion requesting such treatment. Ed wards v. State, 294 Ala. 358 , 317 So.2d 512 (1975). However, the Youthful Offender Act, § 15-19-1, Ala. Code 1975, requires that the court conduct a factual investigation into the defendant’s background. Ware v. State, 432 So.2d 555 (Ala.Cr.App.1983). Generally, the trial court considers the nature of the crime charged,1 any prior convictions, the defendant’s age, and any other matters deemed relevant by the court. Clemmons v. State, 294 Ala. 746 , 321 So.2d 238 (1975). Moreover, the trial court need not articulate on the record its reasons for denying the defendant youthful offender status. Garrett v. State, 440 So.2d 1151, 1152-53 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), cer t. denied (Ala.1983). Accord, Goolsby v. State, 492 So.2d 635 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 892 So. 2d 466 - Chaney v. State

3. “"It has long been the law that a confession is prima facie involuntary and inadmissible, and that before a confession may be admitted into evidence, the burden is upon the State to establish voluntariness and a Miranda predicate. Jackson v. State , 562 So.2d 1373 , 1380 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990). A two-pronged test is used to determine whether an accused's statement is admissible. First, the trial court must determine whether the accused was informed of his Miranda rights. Second, the trial court must determine whether the accused voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights before making his statement. Holder v. State , 584 So.2d 872 , 878 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991); Carpenter v. State , 581 So.2d 1277 , 1278 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 861 So. 2d 1111 - Centobie v. State