540 So. 2d 810 - Barnett v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 2012
1 federal appellate · 8 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 Scott v. Ohio · 507 So. 2d 558 - Korreckt v. State · 494 So. 2d 669 - Neelley v. State · 494 So. 2d 697 - Ex Parte Neelley · 507 So. 2d 554 - Hill 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Barnett does argue that the jury should have been charged on `reckless' manslaughter, because the evidence of his mental disease or defect at the time of the offense rendered him incapable of forming the intent necessary for murder. He analogizes the psychiatric testimony presented here to evidence of intoxication: although `[i]ntoxication is not a defense to a criminal charge, . . . intoxication is admissible in evidence whenever it is relevant to negate an element of the offense charged.' § 13A-3-2 (a). Cf. § 13A-2-6 (a)(1) (A mistake of fact is not a defense to a criminal charge unless the factual mistake negatives the culpable mental state required for the commission of an offense), and 13A-2-6 (d) (`A mistake of law, other than as to the existence or meaning of the statute under which the defendant is prosecuted, is relevant to disprove the specific state of mental culpability required by the statute under which the defendant is prosecuted.'). "Barnett argues that the issue of his mental state should have been submitted to the jury under instructions that it could negate the intent requirement for murder, thereby reducing the killing to manslaughter. This contention embodies the concept of `diminished capacity' or `diminished responsibility,' and was specifically rejected by the draftsmen of *Page 1036 our criminal code. See Ala. Code § 13A-6-3 (Commentary at 158): "`Under § 13A-6-3 (a)(2), it was originally proposed to replace the "heat of passion" due to provocation c”
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.