646 So. 2d 704 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`In an assault and battery case, voluntary intoxication is no defense, unless the degree of intoxication amounts to insanity and renders the accused incapable of forming an intent to injure. Lister v. State , 437 So.2d 622 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). The same standard is applicable in homicide cases. Crosslin [v. State , 446 So.2d 675 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983)]. Although intoxication in itself does not constitute a mental disease or defect within the meaning of § 13A-3-1 , Code of Alabama 1975 , intoxication does include a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body. § 13A-3-2 . The degree of intoxication required to establish that a defendant was incapable of forming an intent to kill is a degree so extreme as to render it impossible for the defendant to form the intent to kill . . . .'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 740 So. 2d 1115 - Davis v. State · 756 So. 2d 892 - Smith v. State

2. “`conduct and demeanor immediately after the crime provided a reasonable inference of sanity.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 740 So. 2d 1115 - Davis v. State · 776 So. 2d 884 - Hammond v. State

3. “"Although the appellant established the existence of substantial pretrial publicity, there was no showing that the publicity prejudiced the venire against the appellant. `It is well established in Alabama ... that the existence of pretrial publicity, even if extensive, does not in and of itself constitute a ground for changing venue and thereby divesting the trial court of jurisdiction of an offense.' Ex parte Fowler, 574 So.2d 745, 747 (Ala.1990). "`The defendant has failed to satisfy the test set out in Ex parte Grayson, 479 So.2d 76, 80 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865 , 106 S.Ct. 189 , 88 L.Ed.2d 157 (1985), because he has not proved that "there existed actual prejudice against the defendant or that the community was saturated with prejudicial publicity." "Newspaper articles or widespread publicity, without more, are insufficient to grant a motion for change of venue." Id. "The standard of fairness does not require jurors to be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved." Id. "The relevant question is not whether the community remembered the case, but whether the jurors at [the defendant's] trial had such fixed opinions that they could not judge impartially the guilt of the defendant." Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1035 , 104 S.Ct. 2885, 2891 , 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984). "`"To ensure that the defendant has a fair and impartial jury, it is not necessary that the veniremembers be totally ignorant of the facts surrounding the case. Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 776 So. 2d 819 - Travis v. State