745 So. 2d 922 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Rule 613, Ala. R. Evid., ... states, in pertinent part: “ ‘(b) Extrinsic Evidence of Prior Inconsistent Statement of Witness. Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness has been confronted with the circumstances of the statement with sufficient particularity to enable the witness to identify the statement and is afforded an opportunity to admit or to deny having made it.’ “Looking at this rule, standing alone, one might conclude that Atchison’s testimony might be admissible to impeach Cottrell’s testimony. However, ... the rules of evidence do not operate in a vacuum. Although Rule 607, Ala. R. Evid., permits a party to impeach his own witness, ‘“the right to impeach one’s oum witness is not absolute and may be held inapplicable due to abuse.” ’ Burgin v. State, 747 So.2d 916, 918 (Ala.Cr.App.1999), quoting C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence, § 166.01(6)(b) (5th ed.1996). “In Burgin , this court was persuaded by the federal courts’ interpretation of Rule 607 of the . Federal Rules of Evidence, which is identical to the Alabama Rule: “ ‘ “[Rule] 607 allows the government to impeach its own witness. See Fed.R.Evid. 607. However, ‘ “the government must not knowingly elicit testimony from a witness in order to impeach him with otherwise inadmissible testimony.” ’ United States v. Gomez-Gallardo, 915 F.2d 553, 555 (9th Cir.1990)(quoting United States v. Whitson, 587 F.2d 948, 952-53 (9th Cir.1978)). Impeachment is imp”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 206 So. 3d 682 - Collins v. State · 763 So. 2d 992 - Ritchie v. State

2. “"Although Rule 607, Ala.R.Evid., permits a party to impeach his own witness, '"the right to impeach one's own witness is not absolute and may be held inapplicable due to abuse."' Burgin v. State , 747 So.2d 916 (Ala.Cr.App. 1999), quoting C. Gamble McElroy's Alabama Evidence . § 165.01(6)(b) (5th ed. 1996). "In Burgin , this court was persuaded by the federal courts' interpretation of Rule 607 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which is identical to the Alabama Rule: "'"[Rule] 607 allows the government to impeach its own witness. See Fed.R.Evid. 607 . However, '"the government must not knowingly elicit testimony from a witness in order to impeach him with otherwise inadmissible testimony."' United States v. Gomez-Gallardo , 915 F.2d 553 , 555 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Whitson , 587 F.2d 948 , 952-53 (9th Cir. 1978)). Impeachment is improper when employed as a guise to present substantive evidence to the jury that would be otherwise inadmissible. Id . A determination must be made as to whether the government examined the witness for the primary purpose of placing before the jury substantive evidence which is otherwise inadmissible. Id ."' " Burgin , 747 So.2d at 918 , quoting United States v. Gilbert , 57 F.3d 709 , 711 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1110 , 115 S.Ct. 2264 , 132 L.Ed. 269 (1995). As this court stated in Burgin , '"[i]t would be an abuse of the rule . . . for the prosecution to call a witness that it [knows will] not give it useful evidence, j”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 86 So. 3d 1105 - Vincent Martez Trawick v. State of Alabama. · 763 So. 2d 992 - Ritchie v. State

3. “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martin v. State · 794 So. 2d 415 - Evans v. State