717 So. 2d 849 - George v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The aggravating circumstances you may consider in this case, if you find from the evidence they have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, are as follows: "That the Defendant was previously convicted of a felony involving the use of threat—Excuse me, involving the use or threat of violence to another person. " Number two, the capital offense was committed while the Defendant was engaged in or was an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery. "The next one you may consider is the same verbiage completely, except in the place of robbery, insert kidnapping. ". . . . "The capital offense was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, compared to other capital offenses. The term `heinous' means extremely wicked or shockingly evil. The term, `atrocious' means outrageously wicked and violent. The term `cruel' means designed to inflict a high degree of pain with utter indifference to or even enjoyment of the suffering of others. "What is intended to be included in these aggravating circumstances are those cases where the actual commission of the crime of capital offenses—Bottom line is saying the term especially heinous has to be shown. All capital offenses have some heinousness, some atrociousness, some cruelty connected with them. This circumstance sets out that it has to be especially heinous, especially atrocious, and especially cruel."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 777 So. 2d 162 - Hagood v. State

2. “"Section 13A-5-50 clearly provides that a jury may consider an element of capital murder as an aggravating circumstance if that element is listed in § 13A-5-49. This court has repeatedly held that the use of an element of capital murder as an aggravating circumstance does not punish a defendant twice for the same offense. Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995). "`"A capital punishment scheme, under which the same felony may form the basis of an essential element of the crime and an aggravating circumstance for consideration by the jury in recommending a sentence, does not constitute a denial of the guarantee against double jeopardy." Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 142 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937 , 109 L.Ed.2d 300 (1990).' " Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474 at 488 ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 777 So. 2d 162 - Hagood v. State