29 Ala. App. 144 - Ingram v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * for it is definitely settled that a defendant cannot escape the penalties for an intentional act which in point of fact produces death, because death might possibly have been averted by some possible mode of treatment. The well settled and oft announced rule is, where the wound is in itself dangerous to life, mere erroneous treatment of it, or of the wounded person suffering from it, will afford the defendant no protection in a charge of homicide. In other words, where death is caused by a dangerous wound, the person inflicting it is responsible for the consequences, though the deceased might have recovered with the exercise of more prudence and with better nurses. Bowles v. State, 58 Ala. 335 ; Lawman v. State, 18 Ala.App. 569 , 93 So. 69 . In Daughdrill v. State, 113 Ala. 7, 34 , 21 So. 378 , 387, the Supreme Court said: ‘It was not necessary to a conviction * * * that the wound should have been “necessarily fatal.” A defendant cannot escape the penalties for an' act which in point of fact produces death because death might possibly have been averted by some possible mode of treatment.’ See, also, Morea’s case, State v. Morea, 2 Ala. 275 ; Parsons v. State, 21 Ala. 300 ; McAllister v. State, 17 Ala. 434 , 52 Am.Dec. 180; Winter v. State, 123 Ala. 1, 11 , 26 So. 949 ; Huckabee v. State, 159 Ala. 45, 49 , 48 So. 796 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 32 Ala. App. 273 - Warren v. State