795 So. 2d 753 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 26 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' Self v. State , 620 So.2d 110 , 113 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992) (quoting Porter v. State , 520 So.2d 235 , 237 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987)); see also Beard v. State , 612 So.2d 1335 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992); Alexander v. State , 601 So.2d 1130 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992).”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lewis v. State · Woolf v. State

2. ““On November 6th, 1996, the defendant had been out with Mends, drinking and smoking marijuana. Upon returning home that evening, the defendant’s thoughts turned to a young female neighbor of his, Melanie Dawn Rowell, and his desire to have sexual relations with her. “At approximately 1:00 a.m. that night, Williams attempted to enter Ro-well’s back door, but the door was locked. He then noticed a kitchen window beside the door. He removed the screen from the window and found that the window was not locked. It was through that window that Williams obtained entrance to the apartment. “Williams proceeded through the kitchen to the stairs leading to the upstairs bedroom. Before exiting the kitchen, Williams removed a knife from a set of knives in a holder on a kitchen countertop. Part way up the stairs, knife in hand, Williams removed his pants. Upon reaching the upstairs area, Williams crossed over a ‘baby gate’ which protected Rowell’s two children, ages 15 months and 2 years, from the stairs. Williams looked into the children’s room and found them both asleep. “Williams then entered the room of Melanie Rowell. He climbed in bed on top of her. When he began removing Rowell’s clothes, a struggle ensued. Ro-well fought Williams and began screaming despite [his] being armed with a knife. Williams placed his hand over her mouth to silence her and once again attempted to remove her clothes. As Rowell continued to struggle, Williams placed his hands around her neck. Eventually Rowell ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. State

3. “"`Bankhead contends that the court's instruction requiring that the jury, in order to find a drunkenness defense applicable, had to find Bankhead insane due to intoxication, was prejudicial. We *Page 955 disagree. 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), appeal after remand, 489 So.2d 680 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986)]. 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 introducing 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. A jury is capable of determining whether a defendant's intoxication rendered it impossible for the defendant to form a particular mental state.'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 922 So. 2d 938 - Flowers v. State