Ex Parte Hampton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an indictment was fatally defective because the statute tracked by the indictment, though valid, omitted the element of mens rea and therefore did not \by itself ... adequately list all the elements of the offense for which [the defendant] was charged and convicted\
• holding that an indictment was fatally defective because the statute tracked by the indictment, though valid, omitted the element of mens rea and therefore did not \ by itself ... adequately list all the elements of the offense for which [the defendant] was charged and convicted\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Sullens v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 2003-10-10· cited 22×
• Kennedy v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 2005-04-29· cited 15×
• Hampton v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 2001-03-02· cited 8×
• A.L.L. v. State
  Supreme Court of Alabama· 2009-08-21· cited 7×
• Matchum v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 2003-06-27· cited 3×
• ALL v. State
  Supreme Court of Alabama· 2009-08-21

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Ex Parte Allred
  Supreme Court of Alabama· 1981-01-09· cited 52×
• Copeland v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 1984-08-14· cited 18×
• Hampton v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 1999-10-29· cited 5×