52 Ala. App. 237 - Strong v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 state decisions

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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In Strong v. State , 52 Ala. App. 237 , 291 So.2d 325 , this Court held: "`Malice is an essential ingredient of murder. As a general rule, it is an inferential fact not susceptible of positive or direct proof. It arises by inference from other facts proven, and in the trial of cases of homicide is to be drawn by the jury, unless the evidence shows, without room for adverse inference , that the killing was intentional, and was accomplished by the use of a deadly weapon which, as a matter of law, may be pronounced a deadly weapon. Mitchell v. State , 60 Ala. 26 ; Wallace v. State , 41 Ala. App. 65 , 124 So.2d 110 ; Hackmen v. State , 41 Ala. App. 642 , 148 So.2d 253 ; Kemp v. State , 278 Ala. 637 , 179 So.2d 762 ; Brand v. State , 46 Ala. App. 41 , 237 So.2d 524 ; Smith v. State , 47 Ala. App. 513 , 257 So.2d 372 . "`In Jones v. State , 13 Ala. App. 10 , 68 So. 690 , the Court of Appeals, per Brown, J., said: "`"Where the killing results from the intentional use of a deadly weapon — that is, a weapon which the court may pronounce such as a matter of law, such as a gun or pistol of sufficient caliber and carrying force as to produce death — and the evidence which proves the killing does not at least afford room for an inference rebutting the presumption of malice *Page 769 arising from the use of such weapon, it is then incumbent on the defendant to rebut that presumption by other evidence. If he fails in this burden, the presumption is conclusive against him, and no duty devol”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 361 So. 2d 607 - Jacobs v. State · 386 So. 2d 767 - Sims v. State

2. ““. . . Voluntary drunkenness does not excuse the commission of a crime and it is not a valid defense. It is a legal defense to crimes involving a specific intent. If one becomes so intoxicated as to be unable to entertain a specific intent then drunkenness to that degree is admissible in his behalf and becomes a jury question.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hogan v. State

3. “A defendant is not entitled to instructions on lesser-included offenses, where his confession of the act charged was admitted, and he relied on evidence of insanity.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 489 So. 2d 612 - Cox v. State