930 So. 2d 550 - Pilley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'[B]ecause intent is a state of mind, it is rarely susceptible of direct or positive proof. Instead, the element of intent must usually be inferred from the facts testified to by the witnesses together with the circumstances as developed by the evidence. Seaton v. State , 645 So.2d 341 , 343 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994) (quoting McCord v. State , 501 So.2d 520 , 528-29 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986) )....”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 25 So. 3d 1169 - Lansdell v. State · 100 So. 3d 610 - Jennifer Crawford v. State of Alabama.

2. ““ A charge on intoxication should be given if “ ‘there is an evidentiary foundation in the record sufficient for the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt’ ” in the element of intent. Coon v. State, 494 So.2d 184, 187 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (quoting Government of the Virgin Islands v. Carmona, 422 F.2d 95 , 99 n. 6 (3d Cir.1970)). See also People v. Perry, 61 N.Y.2d 849 , 473 N.Y.S.2d 966, 966-67 , 462 N.E.2d 143, 143-44 (App.1984) (“[a] charge on intoxication should be given if there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis”). An accused is entitled to have the jury consider the issue of his intoxication where the evidence of intoxication is conflicting, Owen v. State, 611 So.2d 1126, 1128 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Crosslin v. State, 446 So.2d 675, 682 (Ala.Crim. App.1983), where the defendant denies the commission of the crime, Coon v. State, 494 So.2d at 187 ; see Moran v. State, 34 Ala.App. 238, 240 , 39 So.2d 419, 421 , cert. denied, 252 Ala. 60 , 39 So.2d 421 (1949), and where the evidence of intoxication is offered by the State, see Owen v. State, 611 So.2d at 1127-28 .’ “Pilley v. State, 930 So.2d 550, 561-62 (Ala.Crim.App.2005). “However, the court should charge on voluntary intoxication only when there is a sufficient evidentiary foundation in the record for a jury to entertain a reasonable doubt as to the element of intent. Ex parte McWhorter, 781 So.2d 330, 342 (Ala.2000). In”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 58 So. 3d 215 - Spencer v. State

3. “"`" Aid and abet `comprehend all assistance rendered by acts or words of encouragement or support or presence, actual or constructive, to render assistance should it become necessary.'" Jones v. State, 174 Ala. 53, 57 , 57 So. 31 (1911), quoted in Radke v. State, 292 Ala. 290, 292 , 293 So.2d 314 (1974). If the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was present with a view to render aid should it become necessary, the fact that the defendant is an aider and abettor is established. Jones, supra; Raiford v. State, 59 Ala. 106, 108 (1877). "The culpable participation of the accomplice need not be proved by positive testimony, and indeed rarely is so proved. Fuller v. State, 43 Ala.App. 632 , 198 So.2d 625 [(1966)]. Rather, the jury must examine the conduct of the parties and the testimony as to the surrounding circumstances to determine its existence." Miller v. State, 405 So.2d 41, 46 (Ala.Cr.App.1981); Watkins v. State, 357 So.2d 156, 159 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 161 (Ala. 1978).' "Quoted with approval in Travis v. State, 776 So.2d 819, 862-3 (Ala.Crim. App.1997), aff'd, 776 So.2d 874 (Ala. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1081 , 121 S.Ct. 785 , 148 L.Ed.2d 681 (2001)."”

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