Lanier v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a]n indictment must include all of the essential elements that constitute the offense, and it must not leave any element open to inference.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 848 So. 2d 224 - Hale v. State · 931 So. 2d 69 - RSM v. State

2. “This court can review a jurisdictional issue at any time, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sharp · RJK v. State

3. “"An indictment must include all of the essential elements that constitute the offense, and it must not leave any element open to inference. See Heidelberg v. State , 575 So.2d 621 , 622 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Barbee , 417 So.2d at 613 . The intent to commit a specific crime is an essential element of burglary in the first degree, as compared, for example, to criminal trespass in the first degree, which does not require this element. It is clear that an indictment charging burglary must set forth the specific crime intended to be committed within the dwelling. See Popwell v. State , 480 So.2d 41 , 45 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985) (a burglary indictment must set forth and define the crime intended to be committed and `the use of broad terms such as "intent to commit a felony" is not sufficient'). This court is `bound, even in the absence of an objection, to take notice of the indictment's failure to include an essential element of the offense.' Heidelberg , 575 So.2d at 622 (holding an indictment void for failing to allege an essential element of the crime). In order for a court to exercise jurisdiction, it must have jurisdiction over the accused and the crime, and the indictment must sufficiently charge the accused. See id. Absent an allegation in [the appellant's] indictment charging first-degree burglary that [the appellant] intended to commit *Page 1181 a specific crime while in the [the victims'] basement, [the appellant] was not put on notice of the crime of which he was accused and wh”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 915 So. 2d 1179 - Payne v. State