505 So. 2d 403 - King v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2010
10 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 368 So. 2d 871 - Cumbo v. State · Skelton v. City of Birmingham · 363 So. 2d 1020 - Thomas v. State · 447 So. 2d 199 - Willis v. State · 55 Ala. App. 88 - Bass 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Recklessness, as defined in [§ 13A-2-2 (3)] presupposes an awareness of the creation of substantial homicidal risk, a risk too great to be deemed justifiable by any valid purpose that the actor's conduct serves. Since risk, however, is a matter of degree and the motives for risk creation may be infinite in variation, some formula is needed to identify the case where recklessness may be found and where it should be assimilated to purpose or knowledge for purposes of grading. Under [our statutory scheme], this judgment must be made in terms of whether the actor's conscious disregard of the risk, given the circumstances of the case, so far departs from acceptable behaviour that it constitutes a 'gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.' Ordinary recklessness in this sense is made sufficient for a conviction of manslaughter under [§ 13A-6-3 (a)(1)]. In a prosecution for murder, however, [§ 13A-6-2 (a)(2)] calls for the further judgment whether the actor's conscious disregard of the risk, under the circumstances, manifests extreme indifference to the value of human life. The significance of purpose or knowledge as a standard of culpability is that, cases of provocation or other mitigation apart, purposeful or knowing homicide demonstrates precisely such indifference to the value of human life. Whether recklessness is so extreme that it demonstrates similar indifference is not a question, it is submitted, that c”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"(2) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct or creates a grave risk of death to a person other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another person."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Allen v. State · Jordan v. State“[w]hat amounts to 'extreme indifference' depends on the circumstances of each case, . . . some shocking, outrageous, or special heinousness must be shown.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Woods v. State · Allen 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.