Cooper 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. “"`As we noted in Borden v. State , 711 So.2d 498 , 503 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997), aff'd, 711 So.2d 506 (Ala. 1998): "`"We recognize that the trial court may, and indeed should, properly submit to the jury all counts of an indictment and lesser included offenses reasonably supported by the evidence, notwithstanding the fact that some of the lesser included offenses constitute the `same offense' for double jeopardy purposes. Rolling [v. State] , 673 So.2d [812 ] at 815 n. 1 [(Ala.Crim.App. 1995)], citing Ball v. United States , 470 U.S. 856 , 865 , 105 S.Ct. 1668 , 1673-74 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985), and King v. State , 574 So.2d 921 , 935-36 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990) (Bowen, J., concurring specially). See § 13A-1-8 (b). However, where, as here, the jury returns guilty verdicts for both a capital offense alleged in one count of the indictment and the lesser included offense of intentional murder . . . [as] alleged in another count of the indictment, and the same murder was an element of the capital offense and the intentional murder conviction, the trial court should enter a judgment on only one of the *Page 735 offenses. See Coral [v. State ], 628 So.2d [954 ] at 958 [(Ala.Crim.App. 1992)]." "`(Footnote omitted.) See also Simwows v. State , 797 So.2d 1134 , 1184 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999); Ingram v. State] 779 So.2d 1225 , 1241 (Ala.crim.App. 1999), aff d, 779 So.2d 1283 (Ala. 2000).' " Watson v. State , 875 So.2d at 333 ." 912 So.2d at 1152 -53 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 971 So. 2d 729 - Holloway v. State

2. “"`Section 13A-1-8 (b), Ala. Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "`"(b) 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: "`"(1) One offense is included in the other, as defined in Section 13A-1-9 ." "`Intentional murder, as defined in § 13A-6-2 (a)(1), Ala. Code 1975, is a statutory element of the capital offense of murder committed during first-degree robbery, as that offense is defined in § 13A-5-40 (a)(2), Ala. Code 1975; therefore, the State must prove the element of intentional murder to support a conviction for the capital offense of murder committed during a first-degree robbery. See, e.g., Mangione v. State , 740 So.2d 444 , 449 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998).'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 971 So. 2d 729 - Holloway v. State

3. ““No party may assign as error the court’s giving or failing to give a written instruction, or the giving of an erroneous, misleading, incomplete, or otherwise improper oral charge, unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating the matter to which he or she objects and the grounds of the objection. Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Campos v. State