668 So. 2d 78 - Padgett v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 2016
1 federal appellate · 12 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Anderson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · Lynn v. Alabama · Dill v. State · Sanborn v. Commonwealth
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Intentional murder becomes capital murder when the killing occurs during a rape. Section 13A-5-40 , Code of Alabama 1975 . `During' is defined in the Code as meaning `in the course of or in connection with the commission of, or in immediate flight from the commission of the underlying felony or attempt thereof.' Section 13A-5-39 (2), Code of Alabama 1975 . An accused is not guilty of a capital offense where the intent to commit the accompanying felony, in this case rape, was formed only after the victim was killed. Connolly v. State, 500 So.2d 57 , 62 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985), aff'd, 500 So.2d 68 (Ala. 1986). An accompanying felony committed as a `mere afterthought' and unrelated to the murder will not sustain a conviction of capital murder; the question of the defendant's intent at the time of the commission of the crime is usually a jury question. See Smelley v. State, 564 So.2d 74 , 86-87 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990), cert. denied, Ex parte Green, 564 So.2d 89 (Ala. 1990); Connolly, supra at 63 ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"[t]he test used in determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational finder of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Davis v. State , 598 So.2d 1054 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992). This Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Brandon v. State , 542 So.2d 1316 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989)."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Leitner v. State“[e]ssentially, this issue as raised by the appellant is nothing more than a question of conflicting expert testimony. . . . Conflicting evidence is always a question for the finder of fact to determine, and a verdict rendered thereon will not be disturbed on appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State
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.