439 So. 2d 818 - Lee v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 2015
12 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 382 So. 2d 605 - McGinnis v. State · 342 So. 2d 419 - Green v. State · 32 Ala. App. 240 - Taylor v. State · 32 Ala. App. 217 - Johnson v. State · Foust 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Although all the evidence shows that the appellant was drunk at the time of the commission of the crime, there was no evidence to show as a matter of law that the appellant was intoxicated to such an extent as to render him incapable of harboring the required intent. The intoxication must be of such character and extent as to render the accused incapable of consciousness that he is committing a crime, incapable of discriminating between right and wrong — stupefaction of the reasoning faculty. Johnson v. State , 32 Ala. App. 217 , 24 So.2d 228 (1945); Green , supra, [ 342 So.2d 419 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977)]. Whether appellant's intoxicated condition rendered him incapable of harboring the special intent was a question for the jury. Foust v. State , 414 So.2d 485 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). Here the jury decided this issue against appellant." (Emphasis added)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[M]ere drunkenness, voluntarily produced, is never a defense against a criminal charge unless it is so extreme as to render impossible some mental condition which is an essential element of the criminal act. The degree of intoxication necessary to negate the element of malice must be so excessive as to paralyze the mental faculties and render the appellant incapable of forming or entertaining the design to take life.”
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.