446 So. 2d 675 - Crosslin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably 585 So. 2d 112 - Ex Parte Bankhead (1991), 549 So. 2d 122 - Holladay v. State (1988)
1 federal appellate · 38 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 Berger v. United States · Palermo v. United States · Hopper v. Evans · 396 So. 2d 645 - Beck v. State · 361 So. 2d 1106 - Chavers 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“reasonable theory from the evidence which would support the position.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“`[w]hen the crime charged involves a specific intent, such as murder, and there is evidence of intoxication, the trial judge should instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"When the offense consists of an act committed with a particular intent, — when a specific intent is of the essence of the crime, — drunkenness, as affecting the mental state and condition of the accused, becomes a proper subject to be considered by the jury in deciding the question of intent. . . . In Swan v. State, 4 Humph. 136 , it is said: `Although drunkenness, in point of law, constitutes no excuse or justification for crime, still, when the nature and essence of a crime is made by law to depend upon the peculiar state and condition of the criminal's mind at the time, and with reference to the act done, drunkenness, as a matter of fact, affecting such state and condition of the mind, is a proper subject for consideration and inquiry by the jury. The question in such cases is, what is the mental status?' The decided weight of authority sustains the doctrine that evidence of the condition of the accused, though caused by voluntary drunkenness, is receivable, and may be considered by the jury in determining the question of intent. [Citations omitted.] . . . There being some testimony tending to show that defendant was drunk, he had a right to have the jury pass upon its credibility and sufficiency to prove that *Page 793 he was so drunk as to be incapable of forming the specific intent. . . ."”
3 later decisions 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.