Kennedy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`This Court has said: "`"Rule 704, Ala.R.Evid., provides that `[t]estimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is to be excluded if it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.' However, in the case of expert testimony, enforcement of this rule has been lax. C. Gamble, Gamble's Alabama Rules of Evidence § 704 (1995). We have noted previously in Travis v. State, 776 So.2d 819 at 849 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), that expert testimony as to the ultimate issue should be allowed when it would aid or assist the trier of fact, and the fact that `"`a question propounded to an expert witness will elicit an opinion from him in practical affirmation or disaffirmation of a material issue in a case will not suffice to render the question improper'"' (citations omitted); see also Rule 702, Ala.R.Evid. (stating that expert testimony should be allowed when it will aid or assist the trier of fact)." "` Henderson v. State, 715 So.2d 863, 864-65 (Ala.Crim.App.1997).' " [Fitch v. State, ] 851 So.2d [103] at 117 [(Ala.Crim.App.2001)]. Accord, Henderson v. State, 715 So.2d 863, 865 (Ala.Crim.App.1997); Perkins v. State, 808 So.2d 1041, 1106 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala.2001). "Therefore, even if the experts' testimony had been directed to the ultimate issue, and we conclude that it was not, the testimony should have been admitted because it would have aided the jury in its resolution of the case."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 986 So. 2d 1230 - Sanders v. State

2. “"Because § 26-15-3 is not an offense enumerated in Title 13A, because § 26-15-3 has neither been declared a felony nor classified as a particular felony, and because § 26-15-3 provides its own finite punishment range, we hold that the HFOA cannot be applied to enhance a conviction for child abuse under § 26-15-3 ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mosley v. State

3. “The question of admissibility of evidence is generally left to the discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's determination on that question will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 941 So. 2d 318 - Brand v. State