Minor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`The rule on the admissibility of experiments in open court is stated in Shows v. Brunson, 229 Ala. 682, 682 , 159 So. 248 (1935). "`"Experiments or tests of this character in open court are usually within the discretion of the trial judge, guided by a sound judgment as to whether the result will be sufficiently relevant and material to warrant such procedure. 22 C.J. p. 700, § 899. "`"Similarity of conditions, and a test that will go to the substantial question in hand, should appear." "`See also Hawkins v. State, 53 Ala.App. 89, 93 , 297 So.2d 813 (1974). Both the scope and extent of the experiment, if allowed, rest within the sound discretion of the trial judge. The exercise of that discretion will not be reversed on appeal unless it has been clearly and grossly abused. Campbell v. State, 55 Ala. 80 (1876); C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 81.02(1) (3rd ed.1977). "`While the conditions of the experiment and of the occurrence in issue should be substantially similar, they need not be identical. McElroy, 81.01(4). "`"A reasonable or substantial similarity suffices and only where the conditions are dissimilar in an essential particular should the evidence of an experiment be rejected. If we have a case where the conditions are not identical, then the dissimilarity goes to the weight of the evidence of the experiment but not to its admissibility." "`See also Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App.1977).' " Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1278-79 (Ala.Cr.App.1979). S”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Luong v. State · Lam Luong v. State

2. “"`"`"Every court has power to preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence; to prevent interruption, disturbance, or hindrance to its proceedings; and to control all persons connected with a judicial proceeding before it."' Thomas v. State, 555 So.2d 1183, 1184-85 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), quoting Clark v. State, 280 Ala. 493, 497 , 195 So.2d 786 (1967), appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 387 U.S. 571 , 87 S.Ct. 2071 , 18 L.Ed.2d 967 (1967). `"While recognizing that an accused generally has a right to be tried without being subjected to physical restraints, and that this right has been embodied in various constitutional and statutory guaranties, the courts have also recognized that this right is subject to exception, especially on such grounds as the need to prevent (1) the accused's escape, or (2), the accused's resort to violence, or (3) the accused's disruption of the trial."' Thomas, 555 So.2d at 1185 , quoting Annot., 90 A.L.R.3d 17 , 23 (1979)." "` Wood v. State, 699 So.2d 965, 966 (Ala.Cr.App.1997). See also Martin v. State, 51 Ala.App. 405 , 286 So.2d 80, 84 (1973). "`In Campbell v. State, 484 So.2d 1168, 1170 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), this Court concluded that no abuse of discretion resulted from the trial court's requirement that the appellant be handcuffed during his trial. We noted that the appellant in that case "had substantial reason to attempt to escape, since he faced a sentence of life without parole, considering his five previous bank robbery convictions, and the ch”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 893 So. 2d 488 - Snyder v. State · 982 So. 2d 565 - Brown v. State

3. “"`Bankhead contends that the court's instruction requiring that the jury, in order to find a drunkenness defense applicable, had to find Bankhead insane due to intoxication, was prejudicial. We *Page 955 disagree. In an assault and battery case, voluntary intoxication is no defense, unless the degree of intoxication amounts to insanity and renders the accused incapable of forming an intent to injure. Lister v. State , 437 So.2d 622 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). The same standard is applicable in homicide cases. Crosslin [v. State , 446 So.2d 675 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), appeal after remand, 489 So.2d 680 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986)]. Although intoxication in itself does not constitute a mental disease or defect within the meaning of § 13A-3-1 , Code of Alabama 1975 , intoxication does include a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introducing of any substance into the body. § 13A-3-2 . The degree of intoxication required to establish that a defendant was incapable of forming an intent to kill is a degree so extreme as to render it impossible for the defendant to form the intent to kill. A jury is capable of determining whether a defendant's intoxication rendered it impossible for the defendant to form a particular mental state.'"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 922 So. 2d 938 - Flowers v. State · 990 So. 2d 931 - McGowan v. State