579 So. 2d 13 - Cowan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'[a] distinction must be made between mental illness and mental incompetency to stand trial, and the fact that a defendant is mentally ill does not necessarily mean that he is legally incompetent to stand trial. Thus, not every manifestation of mental illness demonstrates incompetence to stand trial; rather, the evidence of defendant's mental unfitness must indicate a present inability to assist counsel or understand the charges.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Shaw v. State · Nicks v. State

2. “"`Although a robbery committed as a "mere afterthought" and unrelated to the murder will not sustain a conviction under § 13A-5-40 (a)(2) for the capital offense of murder-robbery, . . . the question of a defendant's intent at the time of the commission of the crime is usually an issue for the jury to resolve. . . . The jury may infer from the facts and circumstances that the robbery began when the accused attacked the victim and the capital offense was consummated when the defendant took the victim's property and fled. . . . The *Page 677 defendant's intent to rob the victim can be inferred where "the intervening time, if any, between the killing and robbery was part of a continuous chain of events." . . . "`The question this Court must answer is whether "there was sufficient evidence presented by the State, from which the jury could infer that the appellant was guilty of the capital offense charged, beyond a reasonable doubt."'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 736 So. 2d 664 - MacK v. State

3. “and unrelated to the murder will not sustain a conviction under § 13A-5-40 (a)(2) for the capital offense of murder-robbery, . . . the question of a defendant's intent at the time of the commission of the crime is usually an issue for the jury to resolve. . . . The jury may infer from the facts and circumstances that the robbery began when the accused attacked the victim and the capital offense was consummated when the defendant took the victim's property and fled. . . . The *Page 677 defendant's intent to rob the victim can be inferred where”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 736 So. 2d 664 - MacK v. State