132 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1890–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Whisenhantgreen2 sentences2016“While the trial court’s sentencing order is defective, the errors are not so egregious or substantial as to require a new sentencing order.... ‘[T]he harmless error rule does apply in capital cases at the sentence hearing.’ Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1241, 1244 (Ala.1983). ‘As long as the trial judge properly exercises his discretion and the facts indicating the death penalty are “so clear and convincing-that virtually no reasonable person could differ,” a harmless error analysis can be used.’ Baldwin v. State, 456 So.2d 117, 126 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), affirmed, Ex parte Baldwin, 456 So.2d 12 2013“The sole purpose of requiring that the trial judge, as the sentencing authority, make a written finding of the aggravating circumstance is to provide for appellate review of the sentence of death.” Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 338 (Ala.1981). “[T]he harmless error rule does apply in capital cases at the sentence hearing.” Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1241, 1244 (Ala.1983). | 15 | 21 |
Ex Parte Kyzergreen2 sentences2013“The sole purpose of requiring that the trial judge, as the sentencing authority, make a written finding of the aggravating circumstance is to provide for appellate review of the sentence of death.” Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 338 (Ala.1981). “[T]he harmless error rule does apply in capital cases at the sentence hearing.” Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1241, 1244 (Ala.1983). 2012“While the trial court’s sentencing order is defective, the errors are not so egregious or substantial as to require a new sentencing order. ‘The sole purpose of requiring that the trial judge, as the sentencing authority, make a written finding of the aggravating circumstance is to provide for appellate review of the sentence of death.’ Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 338 (Ala.1981). ‘[T]he harmless error rule does apply in capital cases at the sentence hearing.’ Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1241, 1244 (Ala.1983).” Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 144 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). “[T]his court h | 10 | 13 |
Baldwin v. Stategreen2 sentences2016“While the trial court’s sentencing order is defective, the errors are not so egregious or substantial as to require a new sentencing order.... ‘[T]he harmless error rule does apply in capital cases at the sentence hearing.’ Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1241, 1244 (Ala.1983). ‘As long as the trial judge properly exercises his discretion and the facts indicating the death penalty are “so clear and convincing-that virtually no reasonable person could differ,” a harmless error analysis can be used.’ Baldwin v. State, 456 So.2d 117, 126 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), affirmed, Ex parte Baldwin, 456 So.2d 12 2010In applying the a harmless-error analysis to a circuit court’s failure to make specific findings of facts concerning each aggravating circumstances enumerated in § 13A-5-49, Ala.Code 1975, we further noted in Fortenberry : “While the trial court’s sentencing order is defective, the errors are not so egregious or substantial as to require a new sentencing order. ‘The sole purpose of requiring that the trial judge, as the sentencing authority, make a written finding of the aggravating circumstance is to provide for appellate review of the sentence of death.’ Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 338 (A | 6 | 7 |
Ex Parte Baldwingreen2 sentences2016“While the trial court’s sentencing order is defective, the errors are not so egregious or substantial as to require a new sentencing order.... ‘[T]he harmless error rule does apply in capital cases at the sentence hearing.’ Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1241, 1244 (Ala.1983). ‘As long as the trial judge properly exercises his discretion and the facts indicating the death penalty are “so clear and convincing-that virtually no reasonable person could differ,” a harmless error analysis can be used.’ Baldwin v. State, 456 So.2d 117, 126 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), affirmed, Ex parte Baldwin, 456 So.2d 12 2010In applying the a harmless-error analysis to a circuit court’s failure to make specific findings of facts concerning each aggravating circumstances enumerated in § 13A-5-49, Ala.Code 1975, we further noted in Fortenberry : “While the trial court’s sentencing order is defective, the errors are not so egregious or substantial as to require a new sentencing order. ‘The sole purpose of requiring that the trial judge, as the sentencing authority, make a written finding of the aggravating circumstance is to provide for appellate review of the sentence of death.’ Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 338 (A | 6 | 7 |
Thompson v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See also Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 , 103 S.Ct. 3418 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1983); Thompson v. State, 503 So.2d 871, 881 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), affirmed, Ex parte Thompson, 503 So.2d 887 (Ala.), cert. denied, Thompson v. Alabama, 484 U.S. 872 , 108 S.Ct. 204 , 98 L.Ed.2d 155 (1987).” Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 144 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). 2013However, it is admissible under § 13A-5-47 Code of Alabama, being specifically called for consideration by the trial court.’ “Thompson v. State, 503 So.2d 871, 880 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). | 6 | 6 |
Stewart v. Stategreen2 sentences2012“While the trial court’s sentencing order is defective, the errors are not so egregious or substantial as to require a new sentencing order. ‘The sole purpose of requiring that the trial judge, as the sentencing authority, make a written finding of the aggravating circumstance is to provide for appellate review of the sentence of death.’ Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 338 (Ala.1981). ‘[T]he harmless error rule does apply in capital cases at the sentence hearing.’ Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1241, 1244 (Ala.1983).” Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 144 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). “[T]his court h 2007See also Stewart v. State, 730 So.2d 1203, 1215 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (because the appellant's conviction for capital murder during a burglary was valid, "[i]t follows then that the trial court during the sentencing phase did not err in instructing the jury that the State had proved the burglary-murder aggravating circumstance as a matter of law during the guilt phase"), aff'd, 730 So.2d 1246 (Ala.1999). | 4 | 5 |
Ex Parte Whisenhantgreen2 sentences2007However, it `is to be applied with extreme caution in capital cases,' and this caution must be observed when reviewing error in the penalty phase, for `[a]fter all, it is the penalty which distinguishes these cases from all other cases.' Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Ala. 1984). 2005However, it `is to be applied with extreme caution in capital cases,' and this caution must be observed when reviewing error in the penalty phase, for `[a]fter all, it is the penalty which distinguishes these cases from all other cases.' Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Ala. 1984). | 4 | 5 |
Barclay v. Floridagreen2 sentences2016See also Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 , 103 S.Ct. 3418 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1983); Thompson v. State, 503 So.2d 871, 881 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), affirmed, Ex parte Thompson, 503 So.2d 887 (Ala.), cert. denied, Thompson v. Alabama, 484 U.S. 872 , 108 S.Ct. 204 , 98 L.Ed.2d 155 (1987).” Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 144 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). 2016See also Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 , 103 S.Ct. 3418 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1983); Thompson v. State, 503 So.2d 871, 881 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), affirmed, Ex parte Thompson, 503 So.2d 887 (Ala.), cert. denied, Thompson v. Alabama, 484 U.S. 872 , 108 S.Ct. 204 , 98 L.Ed.2d 155 (1987).” Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 144 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). | 4 | 4 |
Kuenzel v. Stategreen2 sentences2013While hearsay evidence may be considered in sentencing, due process requires both that the defendant be given an opportunity to refute it and that it bear minimal indicia of reliability....’ Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474, 528 (Ala.Cr. 1992Any evidence that the court deems to have probative value may be received, regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence.” (Emphasis added.) In a capital case, Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-45(d), provides: “Any evidence which has probative value and is relevant to sentence shall be received at the sentence hearing regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence, provided that the defendant is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any hearsay statements.” “A sentencing judge may consider hearsay evidence so long as the defendant had a fair opportunity at rebuttal | 3 | 4 |
Stephens v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Stephens v. State, 580 So.2d 11, 23 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). 2000See also Stephens v. State, 580 So.2d 11 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). | 3 | 4 |
Lockett v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2000The trial court shall also enter written findings of facts summarizing the crime and the defendant's participation in it." This Court has recently held that: "`A sentencer in a capital case may not refuse to consider or be "precluded from considering" mitigating factors.' Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982)(quoting Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978)). 2000The trial court shall also enter written findings of facts summarizing the crime and the defendant's participation in it." This Court has recently held that: "`A sentencer in a capital case may not refuse to consider or be "precluded from considering" mitigating factors.' Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982)(quoting Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978)). | 3 | 4 |
Gavin v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Accord Bryant v. State, [951] So.2d [702], [732] (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (opinion on return to remand); Gavin v. State, 891 So.2d 907, 995 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), cert. denied, 891 So.2d 998 (Ala.2004); Stewart v. State, 730 So.2d 1203, 1219 (Ala.Crim. 2005Accord Bryant v. State, [Ms. CR-98-0023, April 29, 2005] - So.2d -, - (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (opinion on return to remand); Gavin v. State, 891 So.2d 907, 995 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), cert. denied, 891 So.2d 998 (Ala.2004); Stewart v. State, 730 So.2d 1203, 1219 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), aff'd, 730 So.2d 1246 (Ala.1999). | 2 | 3 |
Jolly v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See also Jolly v. State, 689 So. 2d 986 (Ala. Crim. 2001See also Jolly v. State, 689 So.2d 986 (Ala.Crim.App.1996). | 2 | 2 |
Fortenberry v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See also Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 , 103 S.Ct. 3418 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1983); Thompson v. State, 503 So.2d 871, 881 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), affirmed, Ex parte Thompson, 503 So.2d 887 (Ala.), cert. denied, Thompson v. Alabama, 484 U.S. 872 , 108 S.Ct. 204 , 98 L.Ed.2d 155 (1987).” Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 144 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). 2012“While the trial court’s sentencing order is defective, the errors are not so egregious or substantial as to require a new sentencing order. ‘The sole purpose of requiring that the trial judge, as the sentencing authority, make a written finding of the aggravating circumstance is to provide for appellate review of the sentence of death.’ Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 338 (Ala.1981). ‘[T]he harmless error rule does apply in capital cases at the sentence hearing.’ Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1241, 1244 (Ala.1983).” Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 144 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). “[T]his court h | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Fordgreen2 sentences2016See also Ex parte Ford, 515 So.2d 48, 52 (Ala.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1079 , 108 S.Ct. 1061 , 98 L.Ed.2d 1023 (1988). 1990See also Ex parte Ford , 515 So.2d 48 , 52 (Ala. 1987), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 1079 , 108 S.Ct. 1061 , 98 L.Ed.2d 1023 (1988). | 2 | 2 |
Post v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2016See also Ex parte Ford, 515 So.2d 48, 52 (Ala.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1079 , 108 S.Ct. 1061 , 98 L.Ed.2d 1023 (1988). 1990See also Ex parte Ford , 515 So.2d 48 , 52 (Ala. 1987), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 1079 , 108 S.Ct. 1061 , 98 L.Ed.2d 1023 (1988). | 2 | 2 |
Corley v. Meesegreen2 sentences2016See also Ex parte Ford, 515 So.2d 48, 52 (Ala.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1079 , 108 S.Ct. 1061 , 98 L.Ed.2d 1023 (1988). 1990See also Ex parte Ford , 515 So.2d 48 , 52 (Ala. 1987), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 1079 , 108 S.Ct. 1061 , 98 L.Ed.2d 1023 (1988). | 2 | 2 |
Calhoun v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Calhoun v. State, 932 So.2d 923, 973-74 (Ala.Crim.App.2005).” 114 So.3d at 151 . 2010See Calhoun v. State, 932 So.2d 923, 973-74 (Ala.Crim.App.2005). | 2 | 2 |
| Ex Parte McWilliamsgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Ray v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Washington v. Stricklandgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Bishop v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Henry v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Wheatt v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Stewartgreen2 sentences2007See also Stewart v. State, 730 So.2d 1203, 1215 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (because the appellant's conviction for capital murder during a burglary was valid, "[i]t follows then that the trial court during the sentencing phase did not err in instructing the jury that the State had proved the burglary-murder aggravating circumstance as a matter of law during the guilt phase"), aff'd, 730 So.2d 1246 (Ala.1999). 2005Accord Bryant v. State, [Ms. CR-98-0023, April 29, 2005] - So.2d -, - (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (opinion on return to remand); Gavin v. State, 891 So.2d 907, 995 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), cert. denied, 891 So.2d 998 (Ala.2004); Stewart v. State, 730 So.2d 1203, 1219 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), aff'd, 730 So.2d 1246 (Ala.1999). | 1 | 3 |
| Smiley v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Harris v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Day v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Siebert v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Ex Parte Johnsongreen | 1 | 2 |
| Williams v. Illinoisgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Reynolds v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Demetrius Avery Jackson, Jr. v. State of Alabama.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Andersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fiorella v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hodges v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Waters v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beck v. State
green
2 sentences2002However, we did note that the Alabama Supreme Court in Beck v. State, 396 So.2d 645 (Ala.1980), stated that "the jury verdict that the defendant was guilty of committing the capital offense would mean that the State had already established at least one aggravating circumstance." 396 So.2d at 663 . [2] Currently, § 13A-5-45(e), provides: "(e) At the sentence hearing the state shall have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of any aggravating circumstances. 2002However, we did note that the Alabama Supreme Court in Beck v. State, 396 So.2d 645 (Ala.1980), stated that "the jury verdict that the defendant was guilty of committing the capital offense would mean that the State had already established at least one aggravating circumstance." 396 So.2d at 663 . [2] Currently, § 13A-5-45(e), provides: "(e) At the sentence hearing the state shall have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of any aggravating circumstances. | 8 | 1982–2002 |
Ex Parte Thompson
green
2 sentences2016See also Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 , 103 S.Ct. 3418 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1983); Thompson v. State, 503 So.2d 871, 881 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), affirmed, Ex parte Thompson, 503 So.2d 887 (Ala.), cert. denied, Thompson v. Alabama, 484 U.S. 872 , 108 S.Ct. 204 , 98 L.Ed.2d 155 (1987).” Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 144 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). 2010See also Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 , 103 S.Ct. 3418 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1983); Thompson v. State, 503 So.2d 871, 881 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), affirmed, Ex parte Thompson, 503 So.2d 887 (Ala.), cert. denied, Thompson v. Alabama, 484 U.S. 872 , 108 S.Ct. 204 , 98 L.Ed.2d 155 (1987). | 4 | 1997–2016 |
Marquez v. Texas
green
2 sentences2016See also Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 , 103 S.Ct. 3418 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1983); Thompson v. State, 503 So.2d 871, 881 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), affirmed, Ex parte Thompson, 503 So.2d 887 (Ala.), cert. denied, Thompson v. Alabama, 484 U.S. 872 , 108 S.Ct. 204 , 98 L.Ed.2d 155 (1987).” Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 144 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). 2010See also Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 , 103 S.Ct. 3418 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1983); Thompson v. State, 503 So.2d 871, 881 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), affirmed, Ex parte Thompson, 503 So.2d 887 (Ala.), cert. denied, Thompson v. Alabama, 484 U.S. 872 , 108 S.Ct. 204 , 98 L.Ed.2d 155 (1987). | 4 | 1997–2016 |
Eddings v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2000The trial court shall also enter written findings of facts summarizing the crime and the defendant's participation in it." This Court has recently held that: "`A sentencer in a capital case may not refuse to consider or be "precluded from considering" mitigating factors.' Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982)(quoting Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978)). 2000The trial court shall also enter written findings of facts summarizing the crime and the defendant's participation in it." This Court has recently held that: "`A sentencer in a capital case may not refuse to consider or be "precluded from considering" mitigating factors.' Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982)(quoting Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978)). | 4 | 1989–2000 |
Ex Parte Anderson
green
2 sentences1996"Section 15-18-67 , Code of Alabama 1975, provides that the court 'shall hold' a restitution hearing to determine pecuniary loss to a crime victim, at which time '[t]he defendant, the victim or victims, or their representatives . . . as well as the district attorney shall have the right to be present and be heard upon the issue of restitution . . . ' (emphasis added in Williams ) See also Rule 10(a)(5), Ala.Cr.Crim.P.Temp. ('[Restitution] . . . shall be determined by the court from evidence presented at the sentence hearing if not stipulated by the parties.') "Because a defendant has the right 1987Section 15-18-67, Code of Alabama 1975, provides that the court "shall hold" a restitution hearing to determine pecuniary loss to a crime victim, at which time "[t]he defendant, the victim or victims, or their representatives ... as well as the district attorney shall have the right to be present and be heard upon the issue of restitution...." (emphasis added) See also Rule 10(a)(5), Ala.R.Crim.P.Temp. ("[Restitution]... shall be determined by the court from evidence presented at the sentence hearing if not stipulated by the parties.") Because a defendant has the right to the presence of couns | 3 | 1987–2010 |
Ex Parte Gavin
green
2 sentences2007Accord Bryant v. State, [951] So.2d [702], [732] (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (opinion on return to remand); Gavin v. State, 891 So.2d 907, 995 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), cert. denied, 891 So.2d 998 (Ala.2004); Stewart v. State, 730 So.2d 1203, 1219 (Ala.Crim. 2005Accord Bryant v. State, [Ms. CR-98-0023, April 29, 2005] - So.2d -, - (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (opinion on return to remand); Gavin v. State, 891 So.2d 907, 995 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), cert. denied, 891 So.2d 998 (Ala.2004); Stewart v. State, 730 So.2d 1203, 1219 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), aff'd, 730 So.2d 1246 (Ala.1999). | 3 | 2005–2007 |
Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts
green
2 sentences2001Section 13A-5-39 (6), Ala. Code 1975, defines the term "previously convicted" as that term is used in § 13A-5-49 (2) with regard to aggravating circumstances, and "prior criminal activity" as that term is used in § 13A-5-51 (1) with regard to mitigating circumstances, as follows: "As used in sections 13A-5-49 (2) and 13A-5-51 (1), these terms refer to events occurring before the date of the sentence hearing." In Ex parte Siebert , 555 So.2d 780 , 784 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 963 (1990), the Alabama Supreme Court stated: "In essence, Siebert's argument appears to be that under § 13A- 2000This subsection shall not be construed to authorize the introduction of any evidence secured in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the State of Alabama." In Siebert v. State, 562 So.2d 586 , aff'd, 562 So.2d 600 (Ala.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 963 , 111 S.Ct. 398 , 112 L.Ed.2d 408 (1990), the prosecutor argued as an aggravating circumstance that Siebert had previously been convicted of another capital felony or a felony involving the use or threat of violence toward the person. | 3 | 1996–2001 |
Lockhart v. Nelson
green
2 sentences1992Nelson, however, had convictions to spare, and "the State announced its intention to resentence [Nelson] *Page 378 as a habitual offender, using another prior conviction not offered or admitted at the initial sentence hearing." Lockhart , 488 U.S. at 37 , 109 S.Ct. at 289 . 1992Nelson, however, had convictions to spare, and "the State announced its intention to resentence [Nelson] *Page 378 as a habitual offender, using another prior conviction not offered or admitted at the initial sentence hearing." Lockhart , 488 U.S. at 37 , 109 S.Ct. at 289 . | 3 | 1992–1998 |
Hitchcock v. Dugger
green
2 sentences1996See, Lockett v. Ohio , 438 U.S. 586 , 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 2964 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); Hitchcock v. Dugger , 481 U.S. 393 , 107 S.Ct. 1821 , 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987); Eddings v. Oklahoma , 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982)." 557 So.2d at 836-37 . 1996See, Lockett v. Ohio , 438 U.S. 586 , 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 2964 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); Hitchcock v. Dugger , 481 U.S. 393 , 107 S.Ct. 1821 , 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987); Eddings v. Oklahoma , 455 U.S. 104 , 102 S.Ct. 869 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982)." 557 So.2d at 836-37 . | 3 | 1989–1996 |
Knotts v. State
green
2 sentences2018E.g., Ex parte Smith , 213 So.3d 214 (Ala. 2003) ; Knotts v. State , 686 So.2d 431 , 444 (Ala. Crim. 2018E.g., Ex parte Smith , 213 So.3d 214 (Ala. 2003) ; Knotts v. State , 686 So.2d 431 , 444 (Ala. Crim. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Ex parte Smith
green
2 sentences2018E.g., Ex parte Smith , 213 So.3d 214 (Ala. 2003) ; Knotts v. State , 686 So.2d 431 , 444 (Ala. Crim. 2018E.g., Ex parte Smith , 213 So.3d 214 (Ala. 2003) ; Knotts v. State , 686 So.2d 431 , 444 (Ala. Crim. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| Holley v. State green | 2 | 2004–2010 |
| McGahee v. State green | 2 | 1993–2003 |
| Jurek v. Texas green | 2 | 2000–2001 |
| Ex Parte Siebert green | 2 | 1993–2001 |
| Ex Parte Henry green | 2 | 1993–2001 |
| Spaziano v. Florida red | 2 | 2000–2001 |
| Ex Parte Siebert green | 2 | 1996–2000 |
| Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Ben Cooper, Inc. green | 2 | 1996–2000 |
| Johnson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. green | 2 | 1996–2000 |
| Ex Parte Davis green | 2 | 1992–1998 |
| Lynn v. Alabama green | 2 | 1996–1996 |
| Hinton v. State green | 2 | 1996–1996 |
| Hallford v. State green | 2 | 1996–1996 |
| Mempa v. Rhay green | 2 | 1987–1996 |
| Tate v. Short green | 2 | 1993–1993 |
| Ritter v. State green | 2 | 1983–1984 |
| Smith v. State green | 2 | 1983–1983 |
| Rogers v. State green | 2 | 1983–1983 |
| Slinker v. State green | 2 | 1983–1983 |
| Lehman v. Robinson green | 2 | 1890–1891 |
| Hurst v. Florida green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Hurst v. Florida green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Coral v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Bush v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Ex Parte Bush green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Williams v. Oklahoma green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Kimball v. Johnson green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Ray v. Alabama green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Taylor v. Moore green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.