927 So. 2d 866 - Carruth 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In its sentencing order, the trial court made the following findings of fact, which are supported by the evidence, regarding the crimes: “ ‘[I]n the evening and early morning hours of February 17 and February 18, 2002, the defendant, Michael David Carruth, and another person identified as Jimmy Lee Brooks, Jr., [1] entered the home of Forest F. (Butch) Bowyer and his son William Brett Bowyer, while the home was occupied by both Forest F. (Butch) Bowyer and his son William Brett Bowyer. William Brett Bowyer was twelve (12) years of age. “ ‘[Carruth] and [Brooks] entered the Bowyer home under the guise of being narcotics officers. The Bow-yers were handcuffed and taken to a remote road construction site in rural Russell County, the vicinity of the ultimate murder site, where the elder Bowyer was questioned concerning a safe [that, based on Brooks’s former employment with Bowyer, Carruth and Brooks believed Bowyer had containing $100,000]. The mode of transportation was a white Ford Crown Victoria that had a security shield between the front and back seats. “ ‘The Bowyers were taken back to their home in order for Forest F. (Butch) Bowyer to get money for [Carruth] and [Brooks]. While there, [Carruth] slapped the elder Bowyer. [Brooks] found money[, approximately $47,000] and a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver. “ ‘[Carruth] and [Brooks] transported the Bowyers back to the road construction site, this time to the murder site. [Carruth] walked Forest F. (Butch) Bowyer away f”

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

2. “"Count three. Murder during robbery in the first degree or attempt thereof. [Brooks] is charged with capital murder. The law states that an intentional murder committed during a robbery in the first degree is capital murder. "A person commits an intentional murder if he causes the death of another person and, in performing the act or acts which cause the death of that person, he intends to kill that person. "A person commits a robbery in the first degree if, in the course of committing or attempting to commit a theft, he uses forces against the person of the owner or any person present with intent to overcome his physical resistance or physical power of resistance or threatens the imminent use of force against the person of the owner or any person present with intent to compel acquiesence to the taking of or escaping with the property, and in doing so, he is armed with a deadly weapon. "To convict, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of an intentional murder during robbery in the first degree: That William Brett Bowyer is dead; that the defendant, Jimmy L. Brooks, Jr., caused the death of William Brett Bowyer by shooting him; that in committing the act which caused the death of William Brett Bowyer, the defendant intended to kill the deceased or another person. A person acts intentionally when it is his purpose to cause the death of another person. The, intent to kill must be real and specific. That the defendant committed or attempte”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 973 So. 2d 380 - Brooks v. State

3. “"Although the indictment did not allege the specific crime Carruth intended to commit inside the dwelling, see, e.g., Lanier v. State , 733 So.2d 931 , 936 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998), and Popwell v. State , 480 So.2d 41 , 45 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985) (both holding that a burglary indictment must allege the specific crime the accused intended to commit in the dwelling), the trial court amended the indictment during its jury instructions when it instructed the jury that to find Carruth guilty of capital murder during a burglary it had to find that Carruth intended to commit the crime of theft inside the dwelling. See, e.g., Ash v. State , 843 So.2d 213 (Ala. 2002) (a trial court can amend an indictment through its jury instructions), and Hampton v. State , 815 So.2d 571 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001) (holding that an indictment that fails to charge a mens rea element but otherwise validly charges a crime may be amended to add the mens rea element)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 971 So. 2d 729 - Holloway v. State