761 So. 2d 261 - Wild v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"A `preponderance of evidence' is defined as `evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.' Black's Law Dictionary 1182 (6th ed. 1990). For purposes of applying § 13A-12-250 , Ala. Code 1975, the trial court may not take judicial notice that a sale of a controlled substance occurred within a three-mile radius of a school. Brock v. State , 697 So.2d 1197 (Ala.Cr.App. 1996); Cunny v. State , 629 So.2d 693 (Ala.Cr.App.), appeal after remand, 629 So.2d 697 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993). However, testimony from an officer who is familiar with the location of the sale is sufficient to establish that the sale occurred within three miles of a school. See Anderson v. State , 641 So.2d 1299 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994); Grider v. State , 600 So.2d 401 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 600 So.2d 404 (Ala. 1992). Moreover, it is not necessary that the officer testify about a `specific measurement' of the distance from the site of the sale to the nearest school for the enhancement provision to apply. See Fletcher v. State , 675 So.2d 55 , 56-57 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995), cert. denied, 675 So.2d 58 (Ala. 1996). `Once the state has met its burden of proof, it would be up to the defendant to offer any evidence in dispute. The failure to offer evidence weakens the defendant's position.' Hester v. State , 608 So.2d 420 , 422 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harris v. State

2. ““ ‘ “[A] defendant who alleges an equal protection violation has the burden of proving ... ‘the existence of purposeful discrimination.’ ” McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 292 , 107 S.Ct. 1756, 1767 , 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987). “ ‘ “This court has previously held that, although no clear standards exist for quantum or type of proof sufficient to illustrate discriminatory enforcement of a statute ..., three elements must generally be proved: selectivity in enforcement; selectivity that is intentional; and selectivity based upon some invidious or unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. It is insufficient merely to show that other violators have not been prosecuted, that there has been laxity in enforcement, or that there has been conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement.'’ “ ‘DeShazo v. City of Huntsville, 416 So.2d 1100, 1103 (Ala.Cr.App.1982) (emphasis added). See also Carroll v. State, 599 So.2d 1243, 1244-45 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Patterson v. State

3. “To invoke either provision the State must prove the underlying fact—i.e., that the sale occurred within a three-mile radius of a school or a public housing project—to the sentencing judge”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 846 So. 2d 370 - Poole v. State