Peraita v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The words “aid and abet” encompass all assistance by acts, words of encouragement, or support, or presence, actual or constructive, to render assistance should it become necessary. Wright [v. State, 494 So.2d 936 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) ]; Sanders v. State, 423 So.2d 348 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). Actual participation in the crime need not be proved by positive testimony to convict someone of aiding and abetting. “The jury is to determine whether the appellant’s participation exists and the extent of it from the conduct of the parties and all the testimony presented.” Walls v. State, 378 So.2d 1186, 1191 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), cert. denied, Ex parte Walls, 378 So.2d 1193 (Ala.1980). Such facts as the defendant’s presence in connection with his companionship, and his conduct at, before and after the commission of the act, are potent circumstances from which participation may be inferred.’”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mills v. State · Peak v. State

2. “`[a] trial court will not be placed in error for assigning the wrong reason for a proper ruling, if that ruling is correct for any reason.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stephens v. State · Ware v. State

3. ““ ‘Alabama courts have, in fact, recognized three legal provocations sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter: (1) when the accused witnesses his or her spouse in the act of adultery; (2) when the accused is assaulted or faced with an imminent assault on himself; and (3) when the accused witnesses an assault on a family member or close relative.’ “Rogers v. State, 819 So.2d 643, 662 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). “ ‘ “[Section] 13A-6-3(a)(2) is designed to cover those situations where the jury does not believe a defendant is guilty of murder but also does not believe the killing was totally justified by self-defense.” Shultz v. State, 480 So.2d 73, 76 (Ala.Crim.App.1985). See also Shiflett v. State, 507 So.2d 1056 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). “ ‘ “To constitute adequate legal provocation, it must be of a nature calculated to influence the passions of the ordinary, reasonable man.... ” “ ‘Biggs v. State, 441 So.2d 989, 992 (Ala.Crim.App.1983).’ “Hafford v. State, 674 So.2d 1386, 1390 (Ala.Crim.App.1995).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Spencer v. State · 58 So. 3d 215 - Spencer v. State