425 So. 2d 500 - Gwin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably 479 So. 2d 76 - Ex Parte Grayson (1985), 494 So. 2d 124 - Magwood v. State (1985)
83 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 Irvin v. Dowd · Murphy v. Florida · 17 Ala. App. 674 - Dennison v. State · 362 So. 2d 1296 - Anderson v. State · Baldwin 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Section 13A-6-4 [defining criminally negligent homicide] originally included the 'imperfect defense' doctrine where defendant was not wholly justified or excused in an intentional or reckless killing, but, at the same time, he was partially justified because he caused the death in the good faith but unreasonable belief that he had ground for justification (self-defense, use of force in making arrest, necessity, duress, etc.) and is excused to the extent that he should not be held 100% liable for murder or manslaughter (voluntary), but liable only for the crime of criminally negligent homicide. The doctrine has never been formalized under Alabama law, except to the extent that sometimes whether defendant acted reasonably or rashly, hastily or without good judgment, becomes a state of mind closer to 'negligence' than 'malice' or 'intentional,' and is placed by the jury in a manslaughter category. The 1979 legislature repealed the 'imperfect defense' provision."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Error cannot be predicated upon the trial court's refusal to compel the witness to testify unless the defendant made an offer of proof showing that the testimony he expected to elicit from the witness would not have been incriminating. Compare Murphy v. State , 108 Ala. 10 , 18 So. 557 (1895); Patterson v. State , 37 Ala. App. 161 , 66 So.2d 191 , cert. denied, 259 Ala. 152 , 66 So.2d 194 (1953). Since the witness only could have been required to answer any question which did not tend to incriminate him, but not others, the defendant should have made an offer of proof. To put the trial court in error in declining to allow a question to be answered, it must have been suggested what it was proposed to prove, and how it would be relevant and competent, unless the question in itself gave such information."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Gobble v. State · Reeves v. State“he is not required to be a `Great Stone Face' which shows no reaction to anything that happens in his courtroom. Allen v. State , 290 Ala. 339 , 276 So.2d 583 (1973).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Baker v. State · MT v. State
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.