Pilley v. State

48 Citing cases

  1. Spencer v. State

    58 So. 3d 215 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010)   Cited 37 times
    Remanding case for the court to set out its reasons for overriding the jury's recommendation of life imprisonment without parole

    Generally, where there is evidence of intoxication and the charged offense involves specific intent, such as capital murder, the trial court should instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. See Pilley v. State, 930 So.2d 550, 562 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005). "'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.

  2. Belcher v. State

    341 So. 3d 237 (Ala. Crim. App. 2020)   Cited 9 times

    Maples v. State, 758 So. 2d [1] at 23 [(Ala. Crim. App. 1999)]." Pilley v. State, 930 So. 2d 550, 562 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).

  3. Spencer v. State

    No. CR-12-1837 (Ala. Crim. App. Feb. 26, 2015)

    "Generally, where there is evidence of intoxication and the charged offense involves specific intent, such as capital murder, the trial court should instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. See Pilley v. State, 930 So. 2d 550, 562 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)."'"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.

  4. Spencer v. State

    201 So. 3d 573 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that the circuit court properly submitted to the jury whether the defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons because the evidence showed that "[t]he shootings took place in an apartment complex in a residential neighborhood" and "[r]esidents were in the apartment complex at the time"

    “Generally, where there is evidence of intoxication and the charged offense involves specific intent, such as capital murder, the trial court should instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. See Pilley v. State, 930 So.2d 550, 562 (Ala.Crim.App.2005).“ ‘ “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.

  5. Johnson v. State

    256 So. 3d 684 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    Section 13A–2–2, Ala.Code 1975, provides, in relevant part: "A person who creates a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication, as defined in subdivision (e)(2) of Section 13A–3–2, acts recklessly with respect thereto."In Pilley v. State, 930 So.2d 550 (Ala.Crim.App.2005), this Court stated:" ‘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.

  6. Stanley v. State

    143 So. 3d 230 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that there was no error in the admission of the victim’s daughter’s testimony because the testimony did not describe the impact of the victim’s death on the daughter and because the testimony tended "to explain the events" relevant to the victim’s murder

    ' “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).

  7. Reynolds v. State

    114 So. 3d 61 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)   Cited 46 times
    Finding no prejudice in part because the defendant “did not object to any of the allegedly improper comments”

    Maples v. State, 758 So.2d at 23.”Pilley v. State, 930 So.2d 550, 562 (Ala.Crim.App.2005).

  8. Stanley v. State

    No. CR-06-2236 (Ala. Crim. App. Apr. 29, 2011)   1 Legal Analyses

    " "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).

  9. Reynolds v. State

    No. CR-07-0443 (Ala. Crim. App. Oct. 1, 2010)

    " Pilley v. State, 930 So. 2d 550, 562 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).

  10. Beckworth v. State

    946 So. 2d 490 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that ‘Beckworth was 33 years old at the time this murder was committed and he had a family of his own. Additional evidence about his chaotic upbringing decades earlier would have been entitled to little weight as mitigation for this crime’

    In a case presenting identical circumstances, we were able to review the sentencing proceedings without remanding for a correction of the sentence order. Pilley v. State, 930 So.2d 550 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005). We stated: