Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 13A-5-51 (2026)
Mitigating Circumstances - Generally.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Mitigating circumstances shall include, but not be limited to. the following:
(1) The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity;
(2) The capital offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance;
(3) The victim was a participant in the defendant’s conduct or consented to it;
(4) The defendant was an accomplice in the capital offense committed by another person and his participation was relatively minor;
(5) The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person;
(6) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired; and
(7) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime.
(Acts 1981, No. 81-178, §13.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 282
cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Maples v. State, 758 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999).
Maples v. State, 758 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “See Ala.Code § 13A-5-51(1)(1994 repl. vol.). The court finds this mitigating circumstance is present in this case.”
Hosch v. State, 155 So. 3d 1048 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). “Hosch next argues that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on two statutory mitigating circumstances: that the capital offense was committed while Hosch was under the influence of extreme mental disturbance, § 13A-5-51(2), Ala.Code 1975, and that he was an…”
Smith v. State, 213 So. 3d 108 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). “(The court addressed this one even though it had not submitted this circumstance to the jury for its consideration, yet did not address the two it did submit to the jury, § 13A-5-51(2) and (3).) In sentencing a defendant in a capital case, the trial court is required, among…”
Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). “The appellant argues that the instruction implied that the statutory mitigating circumstances listed in § 13A-5-51 are more important than the non-statutory ones referred to in § 13A-5-52.”
Clark v. State, 896 So. 2d 584 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “Additionally, the trial court should enter specific written findings concerning the existence or nonexistence of each aggravating circumstance enumerated in § 13A-5-49, each mitigating circumstance enumerated in § 13A-5-51, and any additional nonstatutory mitigating…”
McNabb v. State, 887 So. 2d 929 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “) Although the trial court thoroughly addressed those statutory aggravating circumstances and statutory mitigating circumstances that it expressly found to exist, it did not make specific findings regarding the existence or nonexistence of the remainder of the statutory…”
Perkins v. State, 808 So. 2d 1041 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “Code 1975the trial court's instruction listing all of the statutory mitigating circumstances in § 13A-5-51, "unduly emphasized the absence of [several] factors and invited the jurors to consider such absence as [an] aggravating [circumstance].”
Turner v. State, 924 So. 2d 737 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “In relation to the statutory aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we note that the trial court failed to make findings concerning the existence or nonexistence of each circumstance enumerated in § 13A-5-49 and § 13A-5-51. Also, the trial court made the following finding…”
Lam Luong v. State, 199 So. 3d 173 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016). “Code 1975, and § 13A-5-51, Ala.Code 1975); Ex parte Tomlin, 443 So.”
Reynolds v. State, 114 So. 3d 61 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). “The State agreed to the existence of the statutory mitigating circumstance that Reynolds had no significant prior criminal history, see § 13A-5-51, Ala.Code 1975. (Vol. XII, R. 1820-24, 1830-31.”
Sneed v. State, 1 So. 3d 104 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). “Therefore, the mitigating circumstance as specified in § 13A-5-51 (5) does not exist and is not considered by the court.”
Dill v. State, 600 So. 2d 343 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). “The trial court found the existence of three aggravating circumstances: (1) the murder was committed during a robbery in the first degree; (2) the capital offense was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment; and (3) the appellant had previously been convicted of a…”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-51(1) — 91 cases
McNair v. State, 653 So. 2d 320 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992).
Stallworth v. State, 868 So. 2d 1128 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
Ingram v. State, 779 So. 2d 1225 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999).
Maples v. State, 758 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “See Ala.Code § 13A-5-51(1)(1994 repl. vol.). The court finds this mitigating circumstance is present in this case.”
Lane v. State, 169 So. 3d 1076 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013).
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-51(2) — 56 cases
Hosch v. State, 155 So. 3d 1048 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). “Hosch next argues that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on two statutory mitigating circumstances: that the capital offense was committed while Hosch was under the influence of extreme mental disturbance, § 13A-5-51(2), Ala.Code 1975, and that he was an…”
Reynolds v. State, 114 So. 3d 61 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). “The State agreed to the existence of the statutory mitigating circumstance that Reynolds had no significant prior criminal history, see § 13A-5-51, Ala.Code 1975. (Vol. XII, R. 1820-24, 1830-31.”
Perkins v. State, 808 So. 2d 1041 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “Code 1975the trial court's instruction listing all of the statutory mitigating circumstances in § 13A-5-51, "unduly emphasized the absence of [several] factors and invited the jurors to consider such absence as [an] aggravating [circumstance].”
McNabb v. State, 887 So. 2d 929 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “) Although the trial court thoroughly addressed those statutory aggravating circumstances and statutory mitigating circumstances that it expressly found to exist, it did not make specific findings regarding the existence or nonexistence of the remainder of the statutory…”
Maples v. State, 758 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “See Ala.Code § 13A-5-51(1)(1994 repl. vol.). The court finds this mitigating circumstance is present in this case.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-51(3) — 7 cases
Dill v. State, 600 So. 2d 343 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). “The trial court found the existence of three aggravating circumstances: (1) the murder was committed during a robbery in the first degree; (2) the capital offense was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment; and (3) the appellant had previously been convicted of a…”
Maples v. State, 758 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “See Ala.Code § 13A-5-51(1)(1994 repl. vol.). The court finds this mitigating circumstance is present in this case.”
Dobyne v. State, 672 So. 2d 1319 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994).
Borden v. State, 769 So. 2d 935 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998).
United States v. Beckford, 962 F. Supp. 804 (E.D. Va. 1997).
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-51(4) — 12 cases
Hosch v. State, 155 So. 3d 1048 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). “Hosch next argues that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on two statutory mitigating circumstances: that the capital offense was committed while Hosch was under the influence of extreme mental disturbance, § 13A-5-51(2), Ala.Code 1975, and that he was an…”
Sneed v. State, 1 So. 3d 104 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). “Therefore, the mitigating circumstance as specified in § 13A-5-51 (5) does not exist and is not considered by the court.”
Maples v. State, 758 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “See Ala.Code § 13A-5-51(1)(1994 repl. vol.). The court finds this mitigating circumstance is present in this case.”
Boyle v. State, 154 So. 3d 171 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013).
Price v. State, 725 So. 2d 1003 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-51(5) — 16 cases
Maples v. State, 758 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “See Ala.Code § 13A-5-51(1)(1994 repl. vol.). The court finds this mitigating circumstance is present in this case.”
Thomas v. State, 766 So. 2d 860 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998).
Clark v. State, 896 So. 2d 584 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “Additionally, the trial court should enter specific written findings concerning the existence or nonexistence of each aggravating circumstance enumerated in § 13A-5-49, each mitigating circumstance enumerated in § 13A-5-51, and any additional nonstatutory mitigating…”
Gobble v. State, 104 So. 3d 920 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).
Jackson v. State, 791 So. 2d 979 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000).
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-51(6) — 53 cases
Smith v. State, 213 So. 3d 108 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). “(The court addressed this one even though it had not submitted this circumstance to the jury for its consideration, yet did not address the two it did submit to the jury, § 13A-5-51(2) and (3).) In sentencing a defendant in a capital case, the trial court is required, among…”
Hosch v. State, 155 So. 3d 1048 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). “Hosch next argues that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on two statutory mitigating circumstances: that the capital offense was committed while Hosch was under the influence of extreme mental disturbance, § 13A-5-51(2), Ala.Code 1975, and that he was an…”
Lam Luong v. State, 199 So. 3d 173 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016). “Code 1975, and § 13A-5-51, Ala.Code 1975); Ex parte Tomlin, 443 So.”
Perkins v. State, 808 So. 2d 1041 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “Code 1975the trial court's instruction listing all of the statutory mitigating circumstances in § 13A-5-51, "unduly emphasized the absence of [several] factors and invited the jurors to consider such absence as [an] aggravating [circumstance].”
Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). “The appellant argues that the instruction implied that the statutory mitigating circumstances listed in § 13A-5-51 are more important than the non-statutory ones referred to in § 13A-5-52.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-51(7) — 73 cases
Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 (1993).
Maples v. State, 758 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “See Ala.Code § 13A-5-51(1)(1994 repl. vol.). The court finds this mitigating circumstance is present in this case.”
Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). “The appellant argues that the instruction implied that the statutory mitigating circumstances listed in § 13A-5-51 are more important than the non-statutory ones referred to in § 13A-5-52.”
Hall v. State, 820 So. 2d 113 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999).
Hosch v. State, 155 So. 3d 1048 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). “Hosch next argues that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on two statutory mitigating circumstances: that the capital offense was committed while Hosch was under the influence of extreme mental disturbance, § 13A-5-51(2), Ala.Code 1975, and that he was an…”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-51(a) — 1 case
Turner v. State, 924 So. 2d 737 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “In relation to the statutory aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we note that the trial court failed to make findings concerning the existence or nonexistence of each circumstance enumerated in § 13A-5-49 and § 13A-5-51. Also, the trial court made the following finding…”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-51(a)(1) — 2 cases
Jason Michael Osborn v. State of Alabama (Ala. Crim. App. 2026).
Jason Michael Osborn v. State of Alabama (Ala. Crim. App. 2026).
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-51(l) — 31 cases
Boyle v. State, 154 So. 3d 171 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013).
Revis v. State, 101 So. 3d 247 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).
Borden v. Allen, 646 F.3d 785 (11th Cir. 2011).
West v. Allen, 868 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (N.D. Ala. 2011).
Reynolds v. State, 114 So. 3d 61 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). “The State agreed to the existence of the statutory mitigating circumstance that Reynolds had no significant prior criminal history, see § 13A-5-51, Ala.Code 1975. (Vol. XII, R. 1820-24, 1830-31.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.