68 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1978–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
David Dene Martin v. Ross Maggio, Jr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, and William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisianagreen2 sentences1996See also Martin v. Maggio , 711 F.2d 1273 , 1280 (5th Cir. *Page 941 1983), rehearing denied, 739 F.2d 184 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1028 , 105 S.Ct. 447 , 83 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984); Pickens v. Lockhart , 714 F.2d 1455 , 1467 (8th Cir. 1983) ('[I]t is only after a full investigation of all the mitigating circumstances that counsel can make an informed, tactical decision about which information would be the most helpful to the client's case')." "Defense counsel may not rely upon his client to bring to his attention facts indicating an insanity defense precisely because an accused cannot be 1990See also Martin v. Maggio , 711 F.2d 1273 , 1280 (5th Cir. 1983), rehearing denied, 739 F.2d 184 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, [469] U.S. [1028], 105 S.Ct. 447 , 83 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984); Pickens v. Lockhart , 714 F.2d 1455 , 1467 (8th Cir. 1983) ('[I]t is only after a full investigation of all of the mitigating circumstances that counsel can make an informed, tactical decision about which information would be the most helpful to the client's case'). *Page 734 "Defense counsel may not rely upon his client to bring to his attention facts indicating an insanity defense precisely because an accused cann | 7 | 7 |
Edward Charles Pickens v. A.L. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences1996See also Martin v. Maggio , 711 F.2d 1273 , 1280 (5th Cir. *Page 941 1983), rehearing denied, 739 F.2d 184 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1028 , 105 S.Ct. 447 , 83 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984); Pickens v. Lockhart , 714 F.2d 1455 , 1467 (8th Cir. 1983) ('[I]t is only after a full investigation of all the mitigating circumstances that counsel can make an informed, tactical decision about which information would be the most helpful to the client's case')." "Defense counsel may not rely upon his client to bring to his attention facts indicating an insanity defense precisely because an accused cannot be 1990See also Martin v. Maggio , 711 F.2d 1273 , 1280 (5th Cir. 1983), rehearing denied, 739 F.2d 184 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, [469] U.S. [1028], 105 S.Ct. 447 , 83 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984); Pickens v. Lockhart , 714 F.2d 1455 , 1467 (8th Cir. 1983) ('[I]t is only after a full investigation of all of the mitigating circumstances that counsel can make an informed, tactical decision about which information would be the most helpful to the client's case'). *Page 734 "Defense counsel may not rely upon his client to bring to his attention facts indicating an insanity defense precisely because an accused cann | 7 | 7 |
David Dene Martin v. Ross Maggio, Jr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, and William J. Guste, Attorney General of the State of Louisianagreen2 sentences1996See also Martin v. Maggio , 711 F.2d 1273 , 1280 (5th Cir. *Page 941 1983), rehearing denied, 739 F.2d 184 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1028 , 105 S.Ct. 447 , 83 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984); Pickens v. Lockhart , 714 F.2d 1455 , 1467 (8th Cir. 1983) ('[I]t is only after a full investigation of all the mitigating circumstances that counsel can make an informed, tactical decision about which information would be the most helpful to the client's case')." "Defense counsel may not rely upon his client to bring to his attention facts indicating an insanity defense precisely because an accused cannot be 1990See also Martin v. Maggio , 711 F.2d 1273 , 1280 (5th Cir. 1983), rehearing denied, 739 F.2d 184 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, [469] U.S. [1028], 105 S.Ct. 447 , 83 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984); Pickens v. Lockhart , 714 F.2d 1455 , 1467 (8th Cir. 1983) ('[I]t is only after a full investigation of all of the mitigating circumstances that counsel can make an informed, tactical decision about which information would be the most helpful to the client's case'). *Page 734 "Defense counsel may not rely upon his client to bring to his attention facts indicating an insanity defense precisely because an accused cann | 7 | 7 |
Payne v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1996See also Martin v. Maggio , 711 F.2d 1273 , 1280 (5th Cir. *Page 941 1983), rehearing denied, 739 F.2d 184 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1028 , 105 S.Ct. 447 , 83 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984); Pickens v. Lockhart , 714 F.2d 1455 , 1467 (8th Cir. 1983) ('[I]t is only after a full investigation of all the mitigating circumstances that counsel can make an informed, tactical decision about which information would be the most helpful to the client's case')." "Defense counsel may not rely upon his client to bring to his attention facts indicating an insanity defense precisely because an accused cannot be 1990See also Martin v. Maggio , 711 F.2d 1273 , 1280 (5th Cir. 1983), rehearing denied, 739 F.2d 184 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, [469] U.S. [1028], 105 S.Ct. 447 , 83 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984); Pickens v. Lockhart , 714 F.2d 1455 , 1467 (8th Cir. 1983) ('[I]t is only after a full investigation of all of the mitigating circumstances that counsel can make an informed, tactical decision about which information would be the most helpful to the client's case'). *Page 734 "Defense counsel may not rely upon his client to bring to his attention facts indicating an insanity defense precisely because an accused cann | 7 | 7 |
DeBardeleben v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1996See also Martin v. Maggio , 711 F.2d 1273 , 1280 (5th Cir. *Page 941 1983), rehearing denied, 739 F.2d 184 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1028 , 105 S.Ct. 447 , 83 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984); Pickens v. Lockhart , 714 F.2d 1455 , 1467 (8th Cir. 1983) ('[I]t is only after a full investigation of all the mitigating circumstances that counsel can make an informed, tactical decision about which information would be the most helpful to the client's case')." "Defense counsel may not rely upon his client to bring to his attention facts indicating an insanity defense precisely because an accused cannot be 1990See also Martin v. Maggio , 711 F.2d 1273 , 1280 (5th Cir. 1983), rehearing denied, 739 F.2d 184 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, [469] U.S. [1028], 105 S.Ct. 447 , 83 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984); Pickens v. Lockhart , 714 F.2d 1455 , 1467 (8th Cir. 1983) ('[I]t is only after a full investigation of all of the mitigating circumstances that counsel can make an informed, tactical decision about which information would be the most helpful to the client's case'). *Page 734 "Defense counsel may not rely upon his client to bring to his attention facts indicating an insanity defense precisely because an accused cann | 7 | 7 |
Clark v. Southern Oregon Citizens Against Toxic Sprays, Inc.green2 sentences2010See also Martin v. Maggio, 711 F.2d 1273, 1280 (5th Cir.1983), rehearing denied, 739 F.2d 184 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1028 , 105 S.Ct. 447 , 83 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984); Pickens v. Lockhart, 714 F.2d 1455, 1467 (8th Cir.1983) (‘It is only after a full investigation of all the mitigating circumstances that counsel can make an informed, tactical decision about which information would be the most helpful to the client’s case’).” “ ‘Dill v. State, 484 So.2d 491, 498 (Ala.Cr.App.1985) (emphasis original). 1996See also Martin v. Maggio , 711 F.2d 1273 , 1280 (5th Cir. *Page 941 1983), rehearing denied, 739 F.2d 184 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1028 , 105 S.Ct. 447 , 83 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984); Pickens v. Lockhart , 714 F.2d 1455 , 1467 (8th Cir. 1983) ('[I]t is only after a full investigation of all the mitigating circumstances that counsel can make an informed, tactical decision about which information would be the most helpful to the client's case')." "Defense counsel may not rely upon his client to bring to his attention facts indicating an insanity defense precisely because an accused cannot be | 5 | 5 |
Dill v. Stategreen2 sentences1996In Dill v. State , 484 So.2d 491 , 497-98 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985), this court, discussing the duty of defense counsel to investigate a possible insanity defense, stated: "Counsel has a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of the possibility of an insanity defense where the accused has a demonstrated history of mental illness. 1990This court, in Dill v. State , 484 So.2d 491 , 497 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), discussed the duty of counsel to investigate an insanity defense, and stated: "Counsel has a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of the possibility of an insanity defense where the accused has a demonstrated history of mental illness," citing Alvord v. Wainwright , 725 F.2d 1282 , 1288-89 (11th Cir.), modified, 731 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 956 , 105 S.Ct. 355 , 83 L.Ed.2d 291 (1984). | 3 | 6 |
Atkins v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2013Cf. Trawick v. State, 698 So.2d 151 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) (overruling Bass v. State, 585 So.2d 225 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), to the extent it implied that the burden of proving an insanity defense was by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ rather than by ‘clear and convincing evidence’). “ ‘ “In the context of an Atkins claim, the defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is mentally retarded.” Smith v. State, [Ms. 1060427, May 25, 2007] — So.3d [—] at - [(Ala.2007)]; see Smith v. State, [Ms. CR-97-1258, Jan. 16, 2009] — So.3d - at - (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (opin 2013Cf. Trawick v. State, 698 So.2d 151 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) (overruling Bass v. State, 585 So.2d 225 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), to the extent it implied that the burden of proving an insanity defense was by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ rather than by ‘clear and convincing evidence’). “ ‘ “In the context of an Atkins claim, the defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is mentally retarded.” Smith v. State, [Ms. 1060427, May 25, 2007] — So.3d [—] at - [(Ala.2007)]; see Smith v. State, [Ms. CR-97-1258, Jan. 16, 2009] — So.3d - at - (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (opin | 3 | 3 |
Rubin J. Mauldin v. Louie L. Wainwrightgreen2 sentences1996Alvord v. Wainwright , 725 F.2d 1282 , 1288-89 (11th Cir.), modified, 731 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 956 , 105 S.Ct. 355 , 83 L.Ed.2d 291 (1984); Mauldin v. Wainwright , 723 F.2d 799 , 800 (11th Cir. 1984) ('In a case where the sole theory of defense is one of insanity due to alcoholism, we believe that minimally effective representation must include an investigation into the defendant's past and present medical condition.') 'Counsel has an affirmative obligation to make further inquiry where the facts known and available, or within minimal diligence accessible to defense co 1987Alvord v. Wainwright , 725 F.2d 1282 , 1288-89 (11th Cir.), modified, 731 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 956 , 105 S.Ct. 355 , 83 L.Ed.2d 291 (1984); Mauldin v. Wainwright , 723 F.2d 799 , 800 (11th Cir. 1984) ('In a case where the sole theory of defense is one of insanity due to alcoholism, we believe that minimally effective representation must include an investigation into the defendant's past and present medical condition.') 'Counsel has an affirmative obligation to make further inquiry where the facts known and available, or within minimal diligence accessible to defense co | 3 | 3 |
United States Ex Rel. Rivera v. Franzengreen2 sentences2010Rivera v. Franzen, 594 F.Supp. 198, 202 (N.D.Ill.1984). ‘As a practical matter, when deciding whether to present an insanity defense, the criminal defendant’s lawyer is truly the final psychiatrist. 2010Trial counsel may not reject the insanity defense ‘ “without pursuing the basic inquiries necessary to evaluate its merits intelligently.” ’ Rivera, 594 F.Supp. at 203 . | 2 | 7 |
Alvord v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences1990This court, in Dill v. State , 484 So.2d 491 , 497 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), discussed the duty of counsel to investigate an insanity defense, and stated: "Counsel has a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of the possibility of an insanity defense where the accused has a demonstrated history of mental illness," citing Alvord v. Wainwright , 725 F.2d 1282 , 1288-89 (11th Cir.), modified, 731 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 956 , 105 S.Ct. 355 , 83 L.Ed.2d 291 (1984). 1990This court, in Dill v. State , 484 So.2d 491 , 497 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), discussed the duty of counsel to investigate an insanity defense, and stated: "Counsel has a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of the possibility of an insanity defense where the accused has a demonstrated history of mental illness," citing Alvord v. Wainwright , 725 F.2d 1282 , 1288-89 (11th Cir.), modified, 731 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 956 , 105 S.Ct. 355 , 83 L.Ed.2d 291 (1984). | 2 | 4 |
| Boyle v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
Herbert v. Stategreen2 sentences2010"The basic principles of law governing the insanity defense are summarized in Herbert, supra . 2010“The basic principles of law governing the insanity defense are summarized in Herbert, supra. They are: “ 1. | 1 | 5 |
Magwood v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Ex parte Day, 378 So.2d 1159 (Ala.1979); Salmon v. State, 460 So.2d 334 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Magwood v. State, 426 So.2d 918 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). 1996Ex parte Day, 378 So.2d 1159 (Ala.1979); Salmon v. State, 460 So.2d 334 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Magwood v. State, 426 So.2d 918 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). | 1 | 5 |
Alvord v. Wainwrightgreen2 sentences1996Alvord v. Wainwright , 725 F.2d 1282 , 1288-89 (11th Cir.), modified, 731 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 956 , 105 S.Ct. 355 , 83 L.Ed.2d 291 (1984); Mauldin v. Wainwright , 723 F.2d 799 , 800 (11th Cir. 1984) ('In a case where the sole theory of defense is one of insanity due to alcoholism, we believe that minimally effective representation must include an investigation into the defendant's past and present medical condition.') 'Counsel has an affirmative obligation to make further inquiry where the facts known and available, or within minimal diligence accessible to defense co 1990This court, in Dill v. State , 484 So.2d 491 , 497 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), discussed the duty of counsel to investigate an insanity defense, and stated: "Counsel has a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of the possibility of an insanity defense where the accused has a demonstrated history of mental illness," citing Alvord v. Wainwright , 725 F.2d 1282 , 1288-89 (11th Cir.), modified, 731 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 956 , 105 S.Ct. 355 , 83 L.Ed.2d 291 (1984). | 1 | 4 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences1985In short, inquiry into counsel's conversations with the defendant may be critical to a proper assessment of counsel's investigation decisions, just as it may be critical to a proper assessment of counsel's other litigation decisions." 104 S.Ct. at 2066-67 (emphasis added.) Although trial counsel knew that the defendant had previously attempted suicide and had been admitted to a mental hospital, he did not further investigate his client's mental history because he thought "insanity was not a viable defense." He testified that he had seldom seen the insanity defense used successfully. 1985We do not believe the fact that defense counsel had seldom seen the insanity defense used successfully qualifies as a "reasonable professional judgment" supporting his failure to investigate the defendant's mental history. 104 S.Ct. at 2066 . | 1 | 3 |
Loe v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1996Alvord v. Wainwright , 725 F.2d 1282 , 1288-89 (11th Cir.), modified, 731 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 956 , 105 S.Ct. 355 , 83 L.Ed.2d 291 (1984); Mauldin v. Wainwright , 723 F.2d 799 , 800 (11th Cir. 1984) ('In a case where the sole theory of defense is one of insanity due to alcoholism, we believe that minimally effective representation must include an investigation into the defendant's past and present medical condition.') 'Counsel has an affirmative obligation to make further inquiry where the facts known and available, or within minimal diligence accessible to defense co 1987Alvord v. Wainwright , 725 F.2d 1282 , 1288-89 (11th Cir.), modified, 731 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 956 , 105 S.Ct. 355 , 83 L.Ed.2d 291 (1984); Mauldin v. Wainwright , 723 F.2d 799 , 800 (11th Cir. 1984) ('In a case where the sole theory of defense is one of insanity due to alcoholism, we believe that minimally effective representation must include an investigation into the defendant's past and present medical condition.') 'Counsel has an affirmative obligation to make further inquiry where the facts known and available, or within minimal diligence accessible to defense co | 1 | 3 |
Ex Parte Magwoodgreen2 sentences1995Free v. State , 455 So.2d 137 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984); Magwood v. State , 426 So.2d 918 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982), aff'd, 426 So.2d 929 (Ala.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1124 , 103 S.Ct. 3097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1355 (1983)." Ex parte United Service Stations, Inc. , 628 So.2d 501 (Ala. 1993). 1986See Magwood v. State , 426 So.2d 918 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982), affirmed, 426 So.2d 929 (Ala. 1983); Ex parte Day , 378 So.2d 1159 (Ala. 1979); Salmon v. State , 460 So.2d 334 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). | 1 | 3 |
Cunningham v. Stategreen2 sentences1984Great weight must be given to the jury's verdict, and a decision to reject the insanity defense will only be overturned where "`the proof of insanity is overwhelming and undisputed,' Graham v. State , 383 So.2d 892 , 895 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 895 (Ala. 1980)," as quoted in Cunningham , supra. There was evidence that appellant did suffer from a mental abnormality. 1983For a thorough discussion of the insanity defense and its proof at trial, see Cunningham v. State , 426 So.2d 484 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). | 1 | 3 |
| Duren v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Morris v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miller v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Watts v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| May v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pedro Medina v. Harry K. Singletary, Florida Department of Correctionsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thomas v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bailey v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Janezic v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Roy v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Click v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Parkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bui v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ake v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2018The Court then detailed the relevant factors in Ake's case, including that Ake's sole defense had been insanity, that he had been found incompetent to stand trial and had been committed for treatment, that psychiatrists who had examined him for competency suggested that Ake's mental illness might have begun years earlier, and that state law recognized an insanity defense and placed the initial burden of producing evidence on the defendant. 470 U.S. at 86 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 . 2018The Court then detailed the relevant factors in Ake's case, including that Ake's sole defense had been insanity, that he had been found incompetent to stand trial and had been committed for treatment, that psychiatrists who had examined him for competency suggested that Ake's mental illness might have begun years earlier, and that state law recognized an insanity defense and placed the initial burden of producing evidence on the defendant. 470 U.S. at 86 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 . | 6 | 1989–2018 |
Ex Parte Day
green
2 sentences2007Ex parte Day, 378 So.2d 1159 (Ala.1979); Salmon v. State, 460 So.2d 334 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Magwood v. State, 426 So.2d 918 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). 1984In that opinion, Judge Barron wrote: "We hold that by actively pursuing an insanity defense and introducing the deposition of Dr. Rudder as a defense witness, appellant waived any potential psychotherapist-patient privilege or privilege against self-incrimination against the subsequent testimony of Dr. McKeown on rebuttal. `As the Court of Criminal Appeals notes in its opinion, there are states which hold that by pleading insanity, a criminal defendant waives his *Page 142 statutory privilege against disclosure of a `psychotherapist-patient communication.' The better reasoned cases hold, howev | 6 | 1982–2007 |
Bass v. State
green
2 sentences2013Cf. Trawick v. State, 698 So.2d 151 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) (overruling Bass v. State, 585 So.2d 225 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), to the extent it implied that the burden of proving an insanity defense was by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ rather than by ‘clear and convincing evidence’). “ ‘ “In the context of an Atkins claim, the defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is mentally retarded.” Smith v. State, [Ms. 1060427, May 25, 2007] — So.3d [—] at - [(Ala.2007)]; see Smith v. State, [Ms. CR-97-1258, Jan. 16, 2009] — So.3d - at - (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (opin 2012Cf. Trawick v. State, 698 So.2d 151 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) (overruling Bass v. State, 585 So.2d 225 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), to the extent it implied that the burden of proving an insanity defense was by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ rather than by ‘clear and convincing evidence’). “ ‘ “In the context of an Atkins claim, the defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is mentally retarded.” Smith v. State, [Ms. 1060427, May 25, 2007] — So.3d at -; see Smith v. State, [Ms. CR-97-1258, Jan. 16, 2009] — So.3d - at - (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (opinion on return to | 5 | 1995–2013 |
Trawick v. State
green
2 sentences2013Cf. Trawick v. State, 698 So.2d 151 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) (overruling Bass v. State, 585 So.2d 225 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), to the extent it implied that the burden of proving an insanity defense was by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ rather than by ‘clear and convincing evidence’). “ ‘ “In the context of an Atkins claim, the defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is mentally retarded.” Smith v. State, [Ms. 1060427, May 25, 2007] — So.3d [—] at - [(Ala.2007)]; see Smith v. State, [Ms. CR-97-1258, Jan. 16, 2009] — So.3d - at - (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (opin 2012Cf. Trawick v. State, 698 So.2d 151 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) (overruling Bass v. State, 585 So.2d 225 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), to the extent it implied that the burden of proving an insanity defense was by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ rather than by ‘clear and convincing evidence’). “ ‘ “In the context of an Atkins claim, the defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is mentally retarded.” Smith v. State, [Ms. 1060427, May 25, 2007] — So.3d at -; see Smith v. State, [Ms. CR-97-1258, Jan. 16, 2009] — So.3d - at - (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (opinion on return to | 4 | 1998–2013 |
Alvord v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences1996Alvord v. Wainwright , 725 F.2d 1282 , 1288-89 (11th Cir.), modified, 731 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 956 , 105 S.Ct. 355 , 83 L.Ed.2d 291 (1984); Mauldin v. Wainwright , 723 F.2d 799 , 800 (11th Cir. 1984) ('In a case where the sole theory of defense is one of insanity due to alcoholism, we believe that minimally effective representation must include an investigation into the defendant's past and present medical condition.') 'Counsel has an affirmative obligation to make further inquiry where the facts known and available, or within minimal diligence accessible to defense co 1990This court, in Dill v. State , 484 So.2d 491 , 497 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), discussed the duty of counsel to investigate an insanity defense, and stated: "Counsel has a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation of the possibility of an insanity defense where the accused has a demonstrated history of mental illness," citing Alvord v. Wainwright , 725 F.2d 1282 , 1288-89 (11th Cir.), modified, 731 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 956 , 105 S.Ct. 355 , 83 L.Ed.2d 291 (1984). | 4 | 1985–1996 |
Salmon v. State
green
2 sentences2007Ex parte Day, 378 So.2d 1159 (Ala.1979); Salmon v. State, 460 So.2d 334 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Magwood v. State, 426 So.2d 918 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). 1996Ex parte Day, 378 So.2d 1159 (Ala.1979); Salmon v. State, 460 So.2d 334 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Magwood v. State, 426 So.2d 918 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). | 3 | 1986–2007 |
Dixon v. State
green
2 sentences1996Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense." The general principles of law regarding the insanity defense were collected in Herbert v. State, 357 So.2d 683, 688-89 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 690 (Ala.1978), and were carried over to the current formulation of the insanity defense in Dixon v. State, 668 So.2d 65 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). "`Those principles may be summarized as follows: "`1. 1983The standards for determining whether a defendant has met the burden of sustaining an insanity defense are outlined in Herbert v. State , 357 So.2d 683 , 688 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 690 (Ala. 1978), and Christian v. State , 351 So.2d 623 , 624 (Ala. 1977), as follows: "1. | 3 | 1978–1996 |
Weeks v. State
green
2 sentences1988Weeks v. State , 342 So.2d 1335 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977)." Meredith v. State , 370 So.2d 1075 , 1078 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), writ denied, 370 So.2d 1079 (Ala. 1979). 1987Weeks v. State, 342 So.2d 1335 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). | 3 | 1979–1988 |
Christian v. State
green
2 sentences1983This issue was addressed by this Court in Christian v. State , 351 So.2d 623 (Ala. 1977), wherein the Court established guidelines on the insanity defense. 1983The standards for determining whether a defendant has met the burden of sustaining an insanity defense are outlined in Herbert v. State , 357 So.2d 683 , 688 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 690 (Ala. 1978), and Christian v. State , 351 So.2d 623 , 624 (Ala. 1977), as follows: "1. | 3 | 1978–1983 |
Ex Parte Moody
green
2 sentences2007He failed to establish that the requested expert was ‘absolutely necessary to answer a substantial issue or question raised by the state or to support a critical element of the defense.’ Ex parte Moody, 684 So.2d at 119 . 2005He failed to establish that the requested expert was "absolutely necessary to answer a substantial issue or question raised by the state or to support a critical element of the defense." Ex parte Moody, 684 So.2d at 119 . | 2 | 2005–2007 |
Dubose v. State
green
2 sentences2007Unlike Ake , which involved a request for a psychiatrist to prove an insanity defense, or D'iibose v. State, 662 So.2d 1189 (Ala.1995), which involved a request for a DNA expert to challenge the foundation of the State’s case and to establish a critical element of the defense, Beck-worth sought expert assistance with evidence already known and available to him through his own knowledge and experience and through the testimony of his family members. 2005Unlike Ake , which involved a request for a psychiatrist to prove an insanity defense, or Dubose v. State, 662 So.2d 1189 (Ala. 1995), which involved a request for a DNA expert to challenge the foundation of the State's case and to establish a critical element of the defense, Beckworth sought expert assistance with evidence already known and available to him through his own knowledge and experience and through the testimony of his family members. | 2 | 2005–2007 |
Ware v. State
green
2 sentences1998Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. "(b) `Severe mental disease or defect' does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. "(c) The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence." We have explained the insanity defense as follows: "In Ware v. State , 584 So.2d 939 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), this Court observed: "`In 1988, the Alabama legislature replaced our insanity defense statute by enacting the "Reasonable Insanity Test Act of 1988," 1988 Ala. Acts 1051, No. 88-654, n 1996As stated in § 13A-3-1, Code of Alabama 1975, "The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence." Prior to 1988 the accused had to prove an insanity defense by a "preponderance of the evidence." As this court stated in Ware v. State, 584 So.2d 939 (Ala.Cr.App.1991): "In 1988, the Alabama legislature replaced our insanity defense statute by enacting the `Reasonable Insanity Test Act of 1988,' 1988 Ala. Acts 1051, No. 88-654, now codified at Ala.Code § 13A-3-1 (Supp. 1990). | 2 | 1996–1998 |
| Hawkins v. State green | 2 | 1983–1996 |
| Huey R. Lee v. State of Alabama green | 2 | 1983–1996 |
| Carroll v. State green | 2 | 1987–1996 |
| Ex Parte Duren green | 2 | 1991–1993 |
| Morey Et Ux. v. Barrington Press, Inc. green | 2 | 1991–1993 |
| Joubert v. Nebraska green | 2 | 1991–1993 |
| Ex Parte Vaughn green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Ex Parte Land green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Clark v. Arizona green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Roderick Byrd v. State of Alabama. green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| McHugh v. State neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Nichols v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Lee v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Ex Parte Thomas green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Ex Parte Taylor green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Wherry v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Pilkington v. State green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Corbin v. State green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Burks v. United States green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Gray v. State green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Ex Parte Brown green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| West v. Truman Medical Center West, Inc. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Steel v. Steel green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Seals v. Louisiana green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Sims v. Florida green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Barnett v. State green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Beck v. Alabama green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Ellis v. State green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.