887 So. 2d 929 - McNabb v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 34 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`"The proper standard for determining whether a prospective juror may be excluded for cause because of his or her views on capital punishment is `whether the juror's views would "prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath."' Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 , 105 S.Ct. 844, 852 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985); Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 [at 657-58], 107 S.Ct. 2045, 2051 , 95 L.Ed.2d 622 (1987). `The crucial inquiry is whether the venireman could follow the court's instructions and obey his oath, notwithstanding his views on capital punishment.' Dutton v. Brown, 812 F.2d 593, 595 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, Dutton v. Maynard, 484 U.S. 836 , 108 S.Ct. 116 , 98 L.Ed.2d 74 (1987). A juror's bias need not be proved with `unmistakable clarity' because `juror bias cannot be reduced to question and answer sessions which obtain results in the manner of a catechism.' Id. "`"A trial judge's finding on whether or not a particular juror is biased `is based upon determination of demeanor and credibility that are peculiarly within a trial judge's province.' Witt, 469 U.S. at 428 , 105 S.Ct. at 854 . That finding must be accorded proper deference on appeal. Id. `A trial court's rulings on challenges for cause based on bias [are] entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly shown to be an abuse of discretion.' Nobis v. State, 401 So.2d 191, 198 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex part”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hyde v. State · Bryant v. State

2. “"`"testimony that may be inadmissible may be rendered harmless by prior or subsequent lawful testimony to the same effect or from which the same facts can be inferred."' Jackson v. State , 791 So.2d 979 , 1013 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 791 So.2d 1043 (Ala. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 934 , 121 S.Ct. 1387 , 149 L.Ed.2d 311 (2001), quoting White v. State , 650 So.2d 538 , 541 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Rivers , 669 So.2d 239 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995). See also Dawson v. State , 675 So.2d 897 , 900 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995), aff'd, 675 So.2d 905 (Ala. 1996) (`The erroneous admission of evidence that is merely cumulative is harmless error.'); and Thompson v. State , 527 So.2d 777 , 780 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988) (`Testimony which may be apparently illegal upon admission may be rendered prejudicially innocuous by subsequent or prior lawful testimony to the same effect or from which the same facts can be inferred.')."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hinkle v. State · 246 So. 3d 1032 - Kelley v. State

3. ““ ““ “ ‘A party cannot assume inconsistent positions in the trial and appellate courts and, as a general rule, will not be permitted to allege an error in the trial court proceedings which was invited by him or was a natural consequence of his own actions.’ ” ’ Slaton v. State, 680 So.2d 879, 900 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995), aff'd, 680 So.2d 909 (Ala. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1079 , 117 S.Ct. 742 , 136 L.Ed.2d 680 (1997), quoting Campbell v. State, 570 So.2d 1276, 1282 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990). As we have said in applying the invited-error doctrine, ‘ “It would be a sad commentary upon the vitality of the judicial process if an accused could render it impotent by his own choice.’” Murrell v. State, 377 So.2d 1102, 1105 (Ala. Crim.App.), cert. denied, 377 So.2d 1108 (Ala.1979), quoting Aldridge v. State, 278 Ala. 470, 474 , 179 So.2d 51, 54 (1965). ‘The invited error rule has been applied equally in capital cases and noncapital cases.’ Rogers v. State, 630 So.2d 78, 84 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), rev’d on other grounds, 630 So.2d 88 (Ala.1992), affd on remand, sub nom. Musgrove v. State, 638 So.2d 1347 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 638 So.2d 1360 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 845 , 115 S.Ct. 136 , 130 L.Ed.2d 78 (1994).” “‘Perkins v. State, 808 So.2d 1041 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala.2001). “ ‘An invited error is waived, unless it rises to the level of plain error.’ ” Williams v. State, 710 So.2d 1276, 1316 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), aff'd, 710 So.2d 1350 (Ala.1997), cert. ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Reynolds v. State · 151 So. 3d 329 - Ex Parte Sharp, 1080959 (Ala. 12-4-2009)