896 So. 2d 584 - Clark v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “ ‘A person accused of the greater offense has a right to have the court charge on lesser included offenses when there is a reasonable theory from the evidence supporting those lesser included offenses.’ MacEwan v. State, 701 So.2d 66, 69 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997). An accused has the right to have the jury charged on ‘ “any material hypothesis which the evidence in his favor tends to establish.” ’ Ex parte Stork, 475 So.2d 623, 624 (Ala. 1985). ‘[E]very accused is entitled to have charges given, which would not be misleading, which correctly state the law of his case, and which are supported by any evidence, howeverf ] weak, insufficient, or doubtful in credibility,’ Ex parte Chavers, 361 So.2d 1106, 1107 (Ala. 1978), ‘even if the evidence supporting the charge is offered by the State.’ Ex parte Myers, 699 So.2d 1285, 1290-91 (Ala. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1054 , 118 S.Ct. 706 , 139 L.Ed.2d 648 (1998). However, ‘[t]he court shall not charge the jury with respect to an included offense unless there is a rational basis for a verdict convicting the defendant of the included offense.’ § 13A-l-9(b), Ala. Code 1975. ‘The basis of a charge on a lesser-included offense must be derived from the evidence presented at trial and cannot be based on speculation or conjecture.’ Broadnax v. State, 825 So.2d 134, 200 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000), aff'd, 825 So.2d 233 (Ala. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 964 , 122 S.Ct. 2675 , 153 L.Ed.2d 847 (2002). ‘ “A court may properly refuse to charge on a le”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Fuller v. State · Morton v. State

2. ““ ““ “ ‘A party cannot assume inconsistent positions in the trial and appellate courts and, as a general rule, will not be permitted to allege an error in the trial court proceedings which was invited by him or was a natural consequence of his own actions.’ ” ’ Slaton v. State, 680 So.2d 879, 900 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995), aff'd, 680 So.2d 909 (Ala. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1079 , 117 S.Ct. 742 , 136 L.Ed.2d 680 (1997), quoting Campbell v. State, 570 So.2d 1276, 1282 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990). As we have said in applying the invited-error doctrine, ‘ “It would be a sad commentary upon the vitality of the judicial process if an accused could render it impotent by his own choice.’” Murrell v. State, 377 So.2d 1102, 1105 (Ala. Crim.App.), cert. denied, 377 So.2d 1108 (Ala.1979), quoting Aldridge v. State, 278 Ala. 470, 474 , 179 So.2d 51, 54 (1965). ‘The invited error rule has been applied equally in capital cases and noncapital cases.’ Rogers v. State, 630 So.2d 78, 84 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), rev’d on other grounds, 630 So.2d 88 (Ala.1992), affd on remand, sub nom. Musgrove v. State, 638 So.2d 1347 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 638 So.2d 1360 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 845 , 115 S.Ct. 136 , 130 L.Ed.2d 78 (1994).” “‘Perkins v. State, 808 So.2d 1041 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala.2001). “ ‘An invited error is waived, unless it rises to the level of plain error.’ ” Williams v. State, 710 So.2d 1276, 1316 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), aff'd, 710 So.2d 1350 (Ala.1997), cert. ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Reynolds v. State · 151 So. 3d 329 - Ex Parte Sharp, 1080959 (Ala. 12-4-2009)

3. “"As we stated in Clark v. State , 896 So.2d 584 , 597 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003) (opinion on return to remand and on application for rehearing): "`[B]oth the death penalty in general and Alabama's capital-murder statute in particular have been upheld against a variety of constitutional attacks. See Harris v. Alabama , 513 U.S. 504 , 115 S.Ct. 1031 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1995) (holding that Alabama's capital statute does not violate the Eighth Amendment); Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153 , 169 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (plurality opinion) (holding that "the punishment of death does not invariably violate the Constitution"); Proffitt v. Florida , 428 U.S. 242 , 96 S.Ct. 2960 , 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976) (holding that the death penalty is not per se violative of the Eighth Amendment); and Ex parte Taylor , 808 So.2d 1215 (Ala. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1086 , 122 S.Ct. 824 , 151 L.Ed.2d 705 (2002) (holding that Alabama's capital-murder statute does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment). Contrary to Clark's contention, the death penalty is not per se unconstitutional and, therefore, Clark's argument is meritless.' " 896 So.2d at 642-43 ."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 84 So. 3d 968 - Mitchell v. State · 992 So. 2d 64 - Eatmon v. State