900 So. 2d 1249 - White v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “When the same conduct of a defendant may establish the commission of more than one offense, the defendant may be prosecuted for each such offense. He may not, however, be convicted of more than one offense if ... [o]ne offense is included in the other, as defined in Section 13A-1-9 [the lesser-included offense statute]....” “ ‘As we stated in Adams v. State, 955 So.2d 1037 (Ala.Crim.App.2003): ““‘A defendant cannot be convicted of both a capital offense and a lesser offense that is included in the capital charge. See Mangione v. State, 740 So.2d 444 (Ala.Crim.App.1998); Borden v. State, 711 So.2d 498 (Ala.Crim.App.1997), aff'd, 711 So.2d 506 (Ala.1998). As this Court stated in Mangione : “ ‘ “ ‘While the appellant was properly charged with the two capital offenses, see Borden, 711 So.2d at 503-04, n. 3, and both offenses were properly submitted to the jury, the prohibition against double jeopardy was violated when the appellant was convicted of the capital offense of murder during the course of a kidnapping under Count I of the indictment and also was convicted of the lesser-included offense of intentional murder under Count II of the indictment, because the “same murder was an element of the capital offense and the intentional murder conviction.” Borden, 711 So.2d at 503. See also Coral v. State, 628 So.2d 954, 958 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), aff'd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1012 , 114 S.Ct. 1387 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994) (holding that the defendant’s convi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 62 So. 3d 1071 - Roberts v. State

2. “"[a]n accused 'may waive his ... right to counsel ... after the court has ascertained that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily desires to forgo that right.' Rule 6.1(b), Ala. R. Crim. P. This right is constitutionally guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Art. I, § 6, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901. See also Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806 , 834, 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed. 2d 562 (1975) ; Tomlin v. State , 601 So.2d 124 , 128 (Ala. 1991) ; Parker v. State , 455 So.2d 111 , 112-13 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984) ; Luckie v. State , 55 Ala. App. 642 , 644, 318 So.2d 337 , 339, cert. denied, 294 Ala. 764 , 318 So.2d 341 (1975)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 265 So. 3d 387 - Gaston v. State