Craig v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The facts adduced at trial indicate the following: On July 9, 2001, Paulette Gallahar was working at a dry-cleaning business when Craig entered the store, pulled out a weapon, and announced, `”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McPherson v. State · 978 So. 2d 794 - Abrams v. State

2. “`(R. 416.) "`The State presented evidence of one [robbery], but not two separate robberies. The evidence tended to show that Young committed one continuous act of robbery against V.E., using a deadly weapon while committing a theft. The fact that Young forced V.E. into another room does not create a second robbery. The trial court erred in instructing the jury that it did. See Rolling v. State , 673 So.2d 812 , 815 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995).' "724 So.2d at 73. "The evidence in this case, like the evidence in Young , shows that Craig committed one continuous act of robbery against Gallahar. For the reasons stated above, the fact that Craig took property from both Gallahar and from the dry-cleaning business does not create two separate robbery offenses. Therefore, because Craig was twice placed in jeopardy by being indicted for and convicted of two separate charges of first-degree robbery when he in fact committed only one crime against one victim, one of Craig's convictions for first-degree robbery is to be vacated, along with the accompanying; sentence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 978 So. 2d 794 - Abrams v. State · 919 So. 2d 1223 - Banks v. State

3. “`This is not a case where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions. See Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299 (1932). . . . The pertinent inquiry in deciding whether [these convictions are] acceptable in the face of constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy then becomes defining the correct unit of prosecution. Bell v. United States , 349 U.S. 81 (1955).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McPherson v. State · 978 So. 2d 794 - Abrams v. State