729 So. 2d 364 - James v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Here, although the trial court’s written order adequately recites the reasons for revoking the appellant’s probation, the order fails to adequately specify the evidence it relied upon. We have consistently found general recitations by the trial court to its considerations of the ‘testimony,’ ‘sworn testimony,’ or ‘relevant and competent evidence’ presented at the revocation hearing to be insufficient for purposes of satisfying the ‘statement of the evidence relied upon’ requirement of Armstrong . See McCloud v. State, 736 So.2d 1131 (Ala.Crim.App.1998); Thornton v. State, 728 So.2d 1162 (Ala.Crim.App.1998); Scarbrough v. State, 709 So.2d 82 (Ala.Crim.App.1997); and Hairgrove v. State, 668 So.2d 887 (Ala.Crim.App.1995). Thus, the trial court failed to adequately specify the evidence relied upon in revoking the appellant’s probation by stating only that it had ‘heard testimony and arguments of counsel.’ ””

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ewing v. State · Cottle v. State

2. “"In order for the due process requirements set forth in Armstrong[v. State , 294 Ala. 100 , 312 So.2d 620 (1975),] and Rule 27.6(f), Ala. R.Crim. P., to be met, the trial court's order revoking probation must be in writing and must recite the reasons for the revocation and the evidence relied upon in ordering the revocation. Wyatt[v. State ], 608 So.2d [762] at 763 [(Ala. 1992)]. Here, although the trial court's written order adequately recites the reasons for revoking the appellant's probation, the order fails to adequately specify the evidence it relied upon. We have consistently found general recitations by the trial court to its consideration of the `testimony,' `sworn testimony,' or `relevant and competent evidence' presented at the revocation hearing to be insufficient for purposes of satisfying the `statement of the evidence relied upon' requirement of Armstrong . See McCloud v. State , [736] So.2d [1131] (Ala.Cr.App. 1998); Thornton v. State , 728 So.2d 1162 (Ala.Cr.App. 1998); Scarbrough v. State , 709 So.2d 82 (Ala.Cr.App. 1997); and Hairgrove v. State , 668 So.2d 887 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995). Thus, the trial court failed to adequately specify the evidence relied upon in revoking the appellant's probation by stating only that it had `heard testimony and arguments of counsel.' "Although the transcript of the probation revocation hearing presents evidence that supports the court's order revoking the appellant's probation, the Alabama Supreme Court held in Wyatt that the tri”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McCoo v. State · 820 So. 2d 158 - Holden v. State