855 So. 2d 1129 - Barnette v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The appellant also contends that the State did not prove that an official proceeding had commenced at the time the bribery took place. However, § 13A-10 — 121(a)(1), Ala.Code 1975, includes the language ‘a person he believes will be called as a witness in any official proceeding.’ In cases in which official proceedings have not yet begun, it is sufficient that the defendant believe that a person will ultimately be called as a witness in an official proceeding. Based on the evidence the State presented, the jury could have reasonably concluded that, even though there was not any official proceeding at the time of the appellant’s actions, the appellant believed an official proceeding would be initiated and believed W.G. and/or S.M. would be called as a witness in that proceeding.””

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

2. ““(a) A person commits the crime of bribing a witness if he offers, confers or agrees to confer any thing of value upon a witness or a person he believes will be called as a ivitness in any official proceeding with intent to: “(1) Corruptly influence the testimony of that person; “(2) Induce that person to avoid legal process summoning him to testify; or “(3) Induce that person to absent himself from an official proceeding to which he has been legally summoned.””

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