795 So. 2d 788 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently May 2026 · most notably State v. Schreiner (2008), 11 So. 3d 256 - Belisle v. State (2007)
35 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Wong Sun v. United States · Bruton v. United States · Payton v. New York · Davis v. Alaska
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`[T]his statement was elicited to establish the reasons for the officer's action and the reasons the officers searched certain areas of the trailer. It was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted and was not hearsay. "The fact of the conversations in this case was offered to explain the officer's actions and presence at the scene — not for the truth of the matter asserted. Accordingly, it was not hearsay. Clark v. City of Montgomery , 497 So.2d 1140 , 1142 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986)." Thomas v. State , 520 So.2d 223 (Ala.CrApp. 1987).'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The trial court did not give similar detailed instructions at each break in the court proceedings. To require a court to do so would be unduly burdensome, disruptive, and contrary to the clear wording of Rule 19.3(d). Indeed, Rule 19.3(d) does not require that a trial court give the admonitions at each court break. Indeed, Rule 19.3(d) does not state that these instructions must be given more than once in the trial. The record clearly reflects that the jurors were aware of their duties and obligations. There was no violation of Rule 19.3(d)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(3) To knowingly expose themselves to outside comments or to news accounts of the proceedings, until they are discharged as jurors in the case; or”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.