Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 586 SO2D 267 - McLaughlin v. State

McLaughlin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
October 2011
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2011

18 state decisions

120199120002010decided

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 Laughlin v. Internal Revenue Service · White v. State · Kutler v. United States · Ferguson Reorganized School District R-2 v. United States · Willingham 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"[t]he offense of sudden heat of passion manslaughter identified in §§ 13A-6-2 (b) *Page 1089 and 13A-6-3 (a)(2) sets out 'the law of mitigating an intentional murder to manslaughter if committed under a naturally engendering passion' . . . [while] . . . the offense of manslaughter identified in § 13A-6-3 (a)(1) describes a reckless homicide."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"After reviewing the evidence presented to the jury in the case, we conclude that the trial court committed error prejudicial to appellant in not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter. There was evidence, if believed by the jury, to support a reasonable theory that appellant's conduct in bringing about the victim's death was 'reckless' and, therefore, a charge under § 13A-6-3 (a)(1) would have been appropriate."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"[A] properly qualified expert may testify to the 'path of flight' or trajectory of the bullet, Wilbanks v. State , 42 Ala. App. 39 , 151 So.2d 741 , cert. denied, 275 Ala. 701 , 151 So.2d 744 (1963). He may testify to the slant or angle of the gunshot wound and describe its character. Woods v. State , 54 Ala. App. 591 , 310 So.2d 891 (1975); Mathis v. State , [ 15 Ala. App. 245 , 73 So. 122 (1916)]. An expert may testify about the direction from which the bullet was fired or the blow was struck, Blackmon v. State , 246 Ala. 675 , 680 , 22 So.2d 29 (1945), Richardson v. State , 37 Ala. App. 194 , 65 So.2d 715 (1953), and may state the distance between the deceased and the barrel of the weapon at the time the fatal shot was fired. Straughn v. State , 270 Ala. 229 , 121 So.2d 883 (1960)."”
    1 later decision 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.