686 So. 2d 495 - Ivery v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 23 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`"[a] person's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law is not the same as his ability to know right from wrong.... A person may indeed know that doing the act that constitutes a capital offense is wrong and still not appreciate its wrongfulness because he does not fully comprehend or is not fully sensible to what he is doing or how wrong it is."'"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Janezic v. State · 875 So. 2d 336 - Archie v. State

2. “`so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.' Donnelly v. DeChristoforo , 416 U.S. 637 , 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 1871 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State · 722 So. 2d 806 - Freeman v. State.

3. “"Ivery contends that the trial court erred by not finding certain alleged statutory mitigating circumstances: specifically, Ivery challenges the trial court's findings that Ivery did not commit the act constituting the capital offense while under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, see § 13A-5-51 (2); that Ivery's ability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct was not substantially impaired or that his ability to conform his conduct to the law was not substantially impaired, see § 13A-5-51 (6). We review this issue under the plain error standard. "During the sentencing phase of a capital proceeding, a defendant's burden of proof regarding the mitigating circumstance found in § 13A-5-51 (6) is substantially less than his burden during the guilt phase, of proving the defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. See Lewis v. State , 380 So.2d 970 , 977 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979) (`the extent of sub-normal mental capacity [shown in support of this mitigating factor] does not have to measure up to the applicable test necessary to show. . . . insanity that makes one incapable of committing a crime'), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1106 (Ala. 1979); Whisenhant v. State , 370 So.2d 1080 , 1095-96 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1106 (1979) (a finding that a diminished capacity mitigating circumstance exists `may be based on evidence of a lesser standard than is necessary to find insanity')."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 740 So. 2d 1115 - Davis v. State