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

1. ““‘[B]efore the reviewing court can affirm a judgment based upon the “harmless error” rule, that court must find conclusively that the trial court’s error did not affect the outcome of the trial or otherwise prejudice a substantial right of the defendant.’ Ex parte Crymes, 630 So.2d 125, 126 (Ala.1993) (emphasis omitted [in Casey ]). ‘ “The basis.for the [exclusionary] rule lies in the belief that the prejudicial effect of prior crimes will far outweigh any probative value that might be gained from them. Most agree that such evidence of prior crimes has almost an irreversible impact upon" the minds of the jurors.” ’ Ex parte Cofer, 440 So.2d 1121, 1123 (Ala.1983), quoting C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 69.01(1) (3d ed.1977), also quoted in Hobbs v. State, 669 So.2d 1030, 1032 (Ala.Crim.App.1995). “ ‘The Staté has no absolute right to use evidence of prior acts to prove the elements of an offense or to buttress inferences created by other evidence. Evidence of prior bad acts of a criminal defendant is presumptively prejudicial to the defendant. It interjects a collateral issue into the case which may divert the minds of the jury from the main issue. Kilpatrick v. State, 51 Ala.App. 352 , 285 So.2d 516 (1973), cert. denied, 291 Ala. 628 , 285 So.2d 525 (1973). Therefore, the admission of such evidence constitutes reversible error. Hinton v. State, 280 Ala. 48 , 189 So.2d 849 (1966).’ “Ex parte Cofer, 440 So.2d at 1124 . ‘ “The tendency of such evidence [of another disti”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Yates v. State · Frye v. State

2. “'Whether the improper admission of evidence of collateral bad acts amounts to prejudicial error or harmless error must be decided on the facts of the particular case.' R.D.H. v. State , 775 So.2d 248 , 254 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) ; Hobbs v. State , 669 So.2d 1030 (Ala.Crim.App.1995). The standard for determining whether error is harmless is whether the evidence in error was 'harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.' Schaut v. State , 551 So.2d 1135 , 1137 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), citing Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 261 So. 3d 397 - Russell v. State