Carter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Triona Carter's case comes before us for the second time following a reversal of her convictions by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Carter v. State , 843 So.2d 807 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001), opinion on remand from the Alabama Supreme Court. The issue now before us is whether, under the doctrine of transferred intent, a defendant can be convicted of an offense as to the unintended victim that is greater than the offense the defendant was convicted of with respect to the intended victim. The Court of Criminal Appeals answered the question in the negative. We reverse and remand. "As the Court of Criminal Appeals stated in its opinion on remand from this Court: "`The facts are set forth in the previously issued appellate opinions in this case. Of particular relevance here is that Carter, her boyfriend, Trevas Bell, and her good friend, Artimese Johnson, were involved in an altercation with a group composed of Tamiko Smith, Sheri Baker, and Marcus Cephas. Cephas attempted to push Carter, and Bell began fighting with Cephas. As the two men tussled on the ground, Carter hit Cephas, and Cephas knocked Carter to the ground. Carter saw a 9mm pistol on the ground near her, and she picked it up and began firing. . . . Carter shot and killed Cephas and her friend, Artimese Johnson. She also shot and wounded her boyfriend, Bell'”

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

2. ““In Hammond v. State, 497 So.2d 558, 563 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), the Court of Criminal Appeals explicitly adopted the guidelines of the United States Supreme Court in Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 , 52 S.Ct. 189 , 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932), concerning the review of inconsistent verdicts by an appellate court. This Court granted certiorari review, then quashed the writ. In Dunn , the Supreme Court stated: “ ‘[Consistency in the verdict is not necessary. Each count in an indictment is regarded as if it was a separate indictment.... [[Image here]] “ ‘That the verdict may have been the result of compromise, or of a mistake on the part of the jury, is possible. But verdicts cannot be upset by speculation or inquiry into such matters.’ “284 U. S. at 393-94, 52 S.Ct. 189 (citations omitted). Thus, ‘[t]he general rule is that there need be no rational compatibility or consistency between the verdicts on the several counts of an indictment. The exception to this rule is where the jury returns multiple convictions as to crimes which are mutually exclusive of each other.’ Childs v. State, 552 So.2d 187,187 (Ala.Crim.App.1989).””

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

3. “". . . Alabama appellate courts have repeatedly held that `the defendant's liability for the unintended consequences of a criminal act is in the same degree as it would have been had his aim been true and the intended target been injured or killed.' Carter[v. State , 843 So.2d 807 , 810 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000)] (opinion on remand). . . . Section 13A-6-2 (a)(1), Ala. Code 1975, reiterates the doctrine [of transferred intent] in its definition of murder. The statute provides in pertinent part, that `[a] person commits the crime of murder if . . . [w]ith the intent to cause the death of that person or another person, he causes the death of that person or of another person. . . .' (Emphasis added [in Carter ])."”

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