843 So. 2d 213 - Ash v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Rule 13.5(a), Ala.R.Crim.P., forbids amending an indictment `to change the offense or to charge a new offense not contemplated by the original indictment.' This rule preserves the implementation of Article I, § 6, Alabama Constitution of 1901, guaranteeing `[t]hat in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right . . . to demand the nature and cause of the accusation; and to have a copy thereof . . .' and Article I, § 8, as amended by Amendment 37, Alabama Constitution of 1901, guaranteeing that contested felonies will be charged by grand jury indictment, State ex rel. Baxley v. Strawbridge, 52 Ala.App. 685, 687 , 296 So.2d 779, 781 (1974); and Thorn v. State, 39 Ala.App. 227, 227 , 98 So.2d 859, 860 (1957); see also Kennedy v. State, 39 Ala.App. 676, 690 , 107 So.2d 913, 926 (1958). The fundamental constitutionally guaranteed benefits of an indictment to an accused are "`that he may prepare his defence, and plead the judgment as a bar to any subsequent prosecution for the same offence."' Gayden v. State, 262 Ala. 468, 477 , 80 So.2d 501, 504 (1955) (quoting United States v. Simmons, 96 U.S. 360, 3 [62] 24 L.Ed. 819 (1877))."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex Parte State · Wright v. State

2. “"A valid indictment is the source of the subject matter jurisdiction to try a contested criminal case. Batey v. State , 755 So.2d 593 , 595 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999). Absent a valid indictment, a trial court would lack subject matter jurisdiction to try, to convict, or to sentence a defendant in a contested criminal case. Batey, supra , and Hall v. State , 655 So.2d 51 , 52 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995). See also Crews v. State , 40 Ala.App. 306 , 308 , 112 So.2d 805 , 807 (1959). Therefore, an amendment [to an indictment] which changes the offense or charges a new offense not contemplated by the original indictment would deprive the trial court of jurisdiction over the different or new offense."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 920 So. 2d 1069 - Ex Parte Robey · 848 So. 2d 224 - Hale v. State

3. “"The jury instruction at issue before us, like those in Williams [v. State , 701 So.2d 832 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997)], and Styles [v. State , 474 So.2d 185 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985)], effectively amended the indictment to change the conjunction and to the conjunctions either-or and thus to charge the acts disjunctively instead of conjunctively. Therefore, the jury instruction constituted an amendment to the indictment, as Williams and Styles expressly hold."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wright v. State · 889 So. 2d 49 - Jackson v. State