794 So. 2d 415 - Evans 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The concept of multiplicity is discussed in 2 LaFave & Israel, Criminal Procedure, § 19.2(e) (1984): "`A multiplicitous indictment charges a single offense in several counts. It is often the product of a prosecutor's mistaken assumption that a particular statute creates several separate offenses rather than a single crime that can be accomplished through multiple means. A multiplicity issue is also presented when a series of repeated acts are charged as separate crimes but the defendant claims they are part of a continuous transaction and therefore a single crime. '"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 917 So. 2d 159 - Scott v. State

2. “"This Court has established that the State `need only prove to a reasonable probability that the object is in the same condition as, and not substantially different from, its condition at the commencement of the chain.' Sommer v. State, 489 So.2d 643, 645 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). Moreover, the `evidence need not negate the most remote possibility of substitution, alteration, or tampering of the evidence.' Slaughter v. State, 411 So.2d 819, 822 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). We conclude that the State established a proper chain of custody."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 838 So. 2d 413 - Smith v. State

3. “falsely mak{[ing] ... a written instrument {with intent to defraud] which is or purports to be, or which is calculated to become or to represent if completed[ ] (1) a deed, will, codicil, contract, assignment, commercial instrument, credit card ... or other instrument which does or may evidence, create, transfer, terminate or otherwise affect a legal right, interest, obligation or status.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Cunefare