Spencer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘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 hiniself; and (3) when the accused witnesses an assault on q family member or close relative.’ “Rogers v. State, 819 So.2d 643, 662 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). “In discussing what constitutes ‘imminent assault’ in regard to provocation manslaughter, this Court has stated: ““““Mere words, no matter how insulting, never reduce a homicide to manslaughter. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice; that is, the unpremeditated result of passion — heated blood — caused by a sudden, sufficient provocation. And such provocation can, in no case, be less than an assault, either actually committed, or menaced under such pending circumstances as reasonable to convince the mind that the accused has cause for believing, and did believe, he would be presently assaulted, and that he struck, not in consequence of a previously formed design, general or special, but in consequence of the passion suddenly aroused by the blow given, or apparently about to be given.” ... ’ Reeves v. State, 186 Ala. 14 , 65 So. 160, 161 [(1914)].” Easley v. State, 246 Ala. 359, at 362 , 20 So.2d 519, 522 (Ala.1944). Thus, the mere appearance of imminent assault may be sufficient to arouse heat of passion.’ “Cox v. State, 500 So.2d 1296, 1298 ”

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

2. ““Some courts have found that expert testimony on the effects of alcohol is not necessary because it concerns an issue within the common knowledge of a juror. As the Washington Court of Appeals stated in State v. Thomas, 123 Wash.App. 771 , 98 P.3d 1258 (2004): “ ‘A voluntary intoxication defense allows the jury to consider “evidence of intoxication” to determine whether the defendant acted with the requisite intent. But unlike diminished capacity, it is not necessary to present expert testimony to support an involuntary intoxication defense. The effects of alcohol are commonly known and jurors can draw reasonable inferences from testimony about alcohol use. State v. Kruger, 116 Wash.App. 685, 692-93 , 67 P.3d 1147 , rev. denied 150 Wash.2d 1024 , 81 P.3d 120 (2003); State v. Smissaert, 41 Wash.App. 813, 815 , 706 P.2d 647 (1985).’ “123 Wash.App. at 781-82, 98 P.3d at 1263 . See also State v. Frank, 364 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Minn.1985) (‘Most jurors have some experience with the effects of excessive alcohol consumption and therefore, in an ordinary case, will not need expert assistance.’).””

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

3. ““To sufficiently plead an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, a Rule 32 petitioner not only must ‘identify the [specific] acts or omissions of counsel that are alleged not to have been the result of reasonable professional judgment,’ Strickland v . Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), but also must plead specific facts indicating that he or she was prejudiced by the acts or omissions, i.e., facts indicating ‘that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . A bare allegation that prejudice occurred without specific facts indicating how the petitioner was prejudiced is not sufficient.””

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