488 So. 2d 27 - Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably 500 So. 2d 1204 - Hubbard v. State (1986), 545 So. 2d 820 - Carr v. State (1989)
27 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 Kirchberg v. Feenstra · National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Idaho · Cotton v. Federal Land Bank of Columbia · United States v. Barham · 415 So. 2d 1210 - Moore 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Intoxication, short of mania or such impairment of the will and mind as to make an individual unconscious of the meaning of his words, will not render a statement or confession inadmissible.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In order for intoxication to render a confession inadmissible, it must be shown that the mind of the defendant was substantially impaired when the confession was made. Moore v. State , 488 So.2d 27 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986); Moore v. State , 415 So.2d 1210 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 415 So.2d 1210 (Ala.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1041 , 103 S.Ct. 459 , 74 L.Ed.2d 610 (1982), and cases cited therein. `Intoxication, short of mania or such impairment of the will and mind as to make an individual unconscious of the meaning of his words, will not render a statement or confession inadmissible.' Tice v. State , 386 So.2d 1180 , 1185 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 1187 (Ala. 1980). See also Palmer v. State , 401 So.2d 266 , 268 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 401 So.2d 270 (Ala. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 922 , 102 S.Ct. 1280 , 71 L.Ed.2d 463 (1982). "The voluntariness of an alleged confession is a question of law addressed to the trial court, whose ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless it appears to be contrary to the great weight of the evidence or is manifestly wrong. Tice v. State , supra; Garrison v. State , 372 So.2d 55 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979). The degree of intoxication which would affect the voluntariness of a statement is a question of fact initially addressed to the trial court and, depending upon its ruling, then to the jury for its consideration. Tice v. State , 386 So.2d at 1185 ."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Where ample evidence ... exists from which the trial judge could conclude that the appellant was not intoxicated to the extent of mania, the admission of a confession for a jury's consideration is not an abuse of discretion.”
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.