Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 354 So. 2d 334 - Davis v. State

354 So. 2d 334 - Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
3
states following
September 2001
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently September 2001

9 state decisions

501978198019902000decided

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 Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · V. P. Serodino, Inc. v. United States · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Knight 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Three factors are to be considered by the trial court in evaluating an accused's competency to stand trial, (1) the existence of a history of irrational behavior, (2) prior medical opinion, and (3) accused's demeanor at trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Insanity is an affirmative defense and puts the statutory burden upon the defendant to clearly prove to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury that he was so afflicted by disease of the brain when the offense was committed as to render him so insane that he did not know right from wrong with respect to the particular offense charged, or by reason of such mental disease he could not resist doing the wrong; and the crime must have been the product solely of such mentally diseased condition. Lokos v. State, 278 Ala. 586 , 179 So.2d 714 ; Knight v. State, 273 Ala. 480 , 142 So.2d 899 .” Davis v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 354 So.2d 334, 338 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"Even if appellant did not in fact remember the details of the crime, he would still be competent to stand trial. Amnesia concerning the crime does not bar prosecution. A contrary rule would unduly hamper the State's interest in the prosecution of violators of its criminal laws and jeopardize the safety and security of other citizens. We here and now reject the notion that amnesia, standing alone and absent the three factors above mentioned, [1] constitutes incompetency to stand trial."”
    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.