834 So. 2d 135 - Moss v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"'"In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, a reviewing court must accept as true all evidence introduced by the State, accord the State all legitimate inferences therefrom, and consider all evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution."' Ballenger v. State , 720 So.2d 1033 , 1034 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998), quoting Faircloth v. State , 471 So.2d 485 , 488 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984), aff'd, 471 So.2d 493 (Ala. 1985). '"The test used in determining the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational finder of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Nunn v. State , 697 So.2d 497 , 498 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997), quoting O'Neal v. State , 602 So.2d 462 , 464 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992). '"When there is legal evidence from which the jury could, by fair inference, find the defendant guilty, the trial court should submit [the case] to the jury, and, in such a case, this court will not disturb the trial court's decision."' Farrior v. State , 728 So.2d 691 , 696 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998), quoting Ward v. State , 557 So.2d 848 , 850 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990). `The role of appellate courts is not to say what the facts are. Our role . . . is to judge whether the evidence is legally sufficient to allow submission of an issue for decision [by] the jury.' Ex parte Bankston , 358 So.2d 1040 , 1042 (Ala. 1978).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vinnie v. State · 876 So. 2d 509 - Blount v. State

2. “"While it is true the striking of one person for a racial reason is a violation of the principles of Batson, and grounds for reversal, see Williams v. State, 548 So.2d 501 , 507 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), it is equally true that `[m]erely showing that the challenged party struck one or more members of a particular race is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case.' Edwards [v. State], 628 So.2d [1021 ,] 1024 [(Ala.Crim.App. 1993)]. See also Ex parte Trawick, 698 So.2d 162 (Ala. 1997) (holding that without more, the mere fact that the prosecutor used a high number of strikes to remove women from the venire is insufficient to establish a prima facie case). "`A defendant fails to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Batson and Ex parte Branch, *Page 190 526 So.2d 609 (Ala. 1987), where the defendant fails to show any evidence of discrimination other than the number of African-American veniremembers who were struck. Young v. State, 730 So.2d 1251 , 1253-54 (Ala.Cr.App. 1998); Moore v. State, 677 So.2d [828 ,] 829 [(Ala.Crim.App. 1996)]. "`It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine if the State's peremptory challenges of black jurors are motivated by intentional racial discrimination.'" Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 , 43 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120 , 116 S.Ct. 928 , 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996), quoting Ex parte Lynn, 543 So.2d 709 , 712 (Ala. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 945 , 110 S.Ct. 351 , 1”

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

3. “`A defendant fails to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Batson and Ex parte Branch, *Page 190 526 So.2d 609 (Ala. 1987), where the defendant fails to show any evidence of discrimination other than the number of African-American veniremembers who were struck. Young v. State, 730 So.2d 1251 , 1253-54 (Ala.Cr.App. 1998); Moore v. State, 677 So.2d [828 ,] 829 [(Ala.Crim.App. 1996)].”

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