Maddox v. State

20 Citing cases

  1. Ex Parte Smith

    756 So. 2d 957 (Ala. 2000)   Cited 87 times

    ' Id. The degree of intoxication necessary to negate specific intent and, thus, reduce the charge, must amount to insanity. Crosslin v. State, 446 So.2d 675 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), appeal after remand, 489 So.2d 680 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), citing Maddox v. State, 31 Ala. App. 332, [334], 17 So.2d 283, 285 (1944) (other citations omitted)."

  2. Stovall v. State

    34 Ala. App. 610 (Ala. Crim. App. 1949)   Cited 36 times

    An indictment for assault with intent to murder by operation of law includes assault and battery with a weapon, assault and battery, and simple assault. McKinney v. State, 31 Ala. App. 618, 21 So.2d 116; Craven v. State, 22 Ala. App. 39, 111 So. 767; Ellis v. State, 15 Ala. App. 919, 72 So. 758; Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 323; Maddox v. State, 31 Ala. App. 332, 17 So.2d 283; Fleming v. State, 107 Ala. 11, 18 So. 263; Phillips v. State, 170 Ala. 5, 54 So. 111; Lewis v. State, 121 Ala. 1, 25 So. 1017. A defendant is entitled to have the court charge on the lesser offense included in the indictment where there is any reasonable theory from the evidence which would support a conviction for the lesser offense.

  3. Hunt v. Comm'r, Alabama Dep't of Corr.

    666 F.3d 708 (11th Cir. 2012)   Cited 47 times
    Holding petitioner's complaint about the scope of his trial counsel's cross-examination of a prosecution witness failed to satisfy prejudice prong of Strickland where the petitioner failed to present evidence showing either an agreement between the witness and the state or that further probing the witness's criminal history would have revealed anything significantly more damaging to the witness's credibility than the information already known to the jury

    Under Alabama law, voluntary intoxication can negate specific intent only if it “amount[s] to ‘insanity.’ ” Crosslin v. State, 446 So.2d 675, 681–82 (Ala.Crim.App.1983) (quoting Maddox v. State, 31 Ala.App. 332, 17 So.2d 283, 285 (1944)). The defendant's intoxication must “render impossible” the requisite mental state.

  4. Maples v. Dunn

    CASE NO. 5:03-CV-2399-SLB (N.D. Ala. Sep. 14, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    The degree of intoxication necessary to negate specific intent and, thus, reduce the charge, must amount to insanity. Crosslin v. State, 446 So. 2d 675 (Ala. Cr. App. 1983), appeal after remand, 489 So. 2d 680 (Ala. Cr. App. 1984), citing Maddox v. State, 31 Ala. App. 332, 344, 17 So. 2d 283, 285 (1944)(other citations omitted).Ex parte Bankhead, 585 So. 2d 112, 120-21 (Ala. 1991) (emphasis added), rev'd on other grounds 625 So. 2d 1146 (Ala.1993); see also Ex parte McWhorter, 781 So. 2d 330, 340-343 (Ala. 2000).

  5. Ex Parte Thomas

    766 So. 2d 975 (Ala. 2000)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that Thomas was not prejudiced by his trial counsel's failure to preserve for appellate review the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter because even a preserved-error review of that particular error would not have entitled him to a reversal and a new trial

    "It is true that the degree of intoxication necessary to negate specific intent and, thus, reduce the grade of an offense must amount to 'insanity.' Maddox v. State, 31 Ala. App. 332, 334, 17 So.2d 283, 285 (1944). Mere drunkenness, voluntarily produced, is never a defense against a criminal charge, and can never palliate or reduce the grade of an offense, unless it is so extreme as to render impossible some mental condition which is an essential element of the criminal act.

  6. Ex Parte Bankhead

    585 So. 2d 112 (Ala. 1991)   Cited 340 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the level of intoxication necessary to negate a specific intent to kill and support a manslaughter charge "must amount to insanity."

    The degree of intoxication necessary to negate specific intent and, thus, reduce the charge, must amount to insanity. Crosslin v. State, 446 So.2d 675 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), appeal after remand, 489 So.2d 680 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), citing Maddox v. State, 31 Ala. App. 332, 344, 17 So.2d 283, 285 (1944) (other citations omitted). Bankhead contends that the court's instruction requiring that the jury, in order to find a drunkenness defense applicable, had to find Bankhead insane due to intoxication, was prejudicial.

  7. Perkins v. State

    808 So. 2d 1041 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)   Cited 129 times
    Concluding that use of MMPI did not violate Fifth Amendment rights of defendant who put mental health at issue

    The degree of intoxication necessary to negate specific intent and, thus, reduce the charge, must amount to insanity. Crosslin v. State, 446 So.2d 675 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), appeal after remand, 489 So.2d 680 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), citing Maddox v. State, 31 Ala. App. 332, 344, 17 So.2d 283, 285 (1944) (other citations omitted). "Bankhead contends that the court's instruction requiring that the jury, in order to find a drunkenness defense applicable, had to find Bankhead insane due to intoxication, was prejudicial.

  8. Minor v. State

    780 So. 2d 707 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)   Cited 54 times
    In Minor v. State, 780 So.2d 707, (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), we held that there was no Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), violation when the State failed to disclose the personnel files and other information regarding the alleged bias of State witnesses.

    The degree of intoxication necessary to negate specific intent and, thus, reduce the charge, must amount to insanity. Crosslin v. State, 446 So.2d 675 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), appeal after remand, 489 So.2d 680 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), citing Maddox v. State, 31 Ala. App. 332, 344, 17 So.2d 283, 285 (1944) (other citations omitted). "Bankhead contends that the court's instruction requiring that the jury, in order to find a drunkenness defense applicable, had to find Bankhead insane due to intoxication, was prejudicial.

  9. Thomas v. State

    766 So. 2d 860 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998)   Cited 86 times
    Holding that Thomas's Eighth Amendment claim was procedurally barred under state procedural rules and that as a matter of federal constitutional law, Thomas's Eighth Amendment claim was without merit

    "It is true that the degree of intoxication necessary to negate specific intent and, thus, reduce the grade of an offense must amount to 'insanity.' Maddox v. State, 31 Ala. App. 332, 334, 17 So.2d 283, 285 (1944). Mere drunkenness, voluntarily produced, is never a defense against a criminal charge, and can never palliate or reduce the grade of an offense, unless it is so extreme as to render impossible some mental condition which is an essential element of the criminal act.

  10. Striplin v. City of Dothan

    607 So. 2d 1285 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)   Cited 5 times

    " However, "[v]oluntary intoxication is no defense to a charge of assault and battery, unless the degree of intoxication amounts to insanity and renders the accused incapable of forming an intent to injure." Lister v. State, 429 So.2d 622 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983) (citing Maddox v. State, 31 Ala. App. 332, 334, 17 So.2d 283 (1944)); see also Duren v. State, 590 So.2d 360, 364 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), aff'd, 590 So.2d 369 (Ala. 1991). Moreover, whether intoxication is substantial enough "to render intoxicated persons incapable of forming a specific intent . . . is a question for the jury [or trier of fact]."