102 So. 2d 738 - Trimble v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “****** “It is this last opinion evidence which appellant claims raises a reasonable hypothesis that another automobile actually struck the deceased and caused the fatal injuries, and that if appellant struck the decedent it was after she had already been knocked down by another automobile. The appellant argues that since such a reasonable hypothesis exists, he should have been exonerated in that the law in Florida as stated in Savage v. State, 152 Fla. 367 , 11 So.2d 778 , is to the effect that the State may prove the guilt of the accused by circumstantial evidence, but, where the evidence relied upon for conviction is entirely circumstantial, the law requires that such evidence, as a whole, must be so strong, cogent, and convincing as to exclude any reasonable hypothesis, except that of the defendant’s guilt. “While we recognize the rule as stated in Savage v. State, supra, we hold that the evidence here met that standard. See Lopez v. State, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 807 . It is not necessary to sustain a jury’s verdict in a manslaughter conviction that the State present an eyewitness to the actual striking of the blow.” (Emphasis supplied) >¡< >¡< % ‡ ‡”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 262 So. 2d 729 - Navarro v. State