Reedy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
126 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently February 1990 · most notably Cobern v. State (1962), Aaron v. State (1960)
126 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah · Anderson v. State · Parsons v. State · Boyle v. State · 31 Ala. App. 21 - Wilson v. State
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The defense of insanity must be clearly prove to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury and the burden is on the defendant to do so. Code, 1940, Title 15, § 422; Boyle v. State, 229 Ala. 212 , 154 So. 575 ; Lee v. State, Ala.Sup., 20 So.2d 471 ; Reedy v. State, Ala.Sup., 20 So.2d 528 . “There is no sanction in our law of emotional insanity as an excuse for crime. Coffey v. State, 244 Ala. 514 , 14 So.2d 122 ; Reedy v. State, supra. “We repeat the well-known rule that to sustain the defense of insanity the evidence must establish that at the time of the commission of the crime the defendant was afflicted with a diseased mind to the extent that (1) he did not know right from wrong as applied to the particular act in question, or (2) if he did have such knowledge, he, nevertheless, by reason of the duress of such mental disease had so far lost the power to select the right and to avoid doing the act in question as that his free agency was at the time destroyed, and (3) that, at the same time, the crime was so connected with such mental disease, in the relation of cause and effect, as to have been the product of it solely. Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577 , at pages 596, 597, 2 So. 854 , 60 Am.Rep. 193 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"Charges 1 and 2 were argumentative and invaded the province of the jury in pretermitting a discretion in the jury of weighing the fact hypothesized in the charges. The two cases (Clark v. State , 28 Ala. App. 448 , 186 So. 778 ; Stewart v. State , 25 Ala. App. 266 , 145 So. 162 ) cited as a basis for the argument for error, while stating the proposition embraced in the charges, were dealing with matters of evidence. Abstract statements of law from judicial opinions do not always justify their correctness when embraced in charges to the jury. Southern R. Co. v. Hayes , 198 Ala. 601 , 73 So. 945 ; Torian v. Ashford , 216 Ala. 85 , 112 So. 418 ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Though such evidence be only cumulative and may tend to inflame the jury, its admissibility will not be affected if it sheds light upon a material inquiry or illustrates the transaction at issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.