121 So. 3d 409 - Daniels v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited
33 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Delva · 39 So. 3d 252 - State v. Montgomery · 237 So. 2d 134 - Sanford v. Rubin · 124 So. 2d 481 - Brown v. State · 837 So. 2d 366 - Reed v. State
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] defective instruction in a criminal case can only constitute fundamental error if the error pertains to a material element that is disputed at trial. Accordingly, where the trial court fails to correctly instruct on an element of the crime over which there is dispute, and that element is both pertinent and material to what the jury must consider in order to decide if the defendant is guilty of the crime charged or any of its lesser included offenses, fundamental error occurs.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Brown [ v. State , 124 So.2d 481 , 484 (Fla.1960) ]. In other words,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“To prove the crime of manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. Dwayne Clementson is dead. 2. (a) Nicolas Dominique intentionally caused the death of Dwayne Clement-son. or (b) The death of Dwayne Clementson was caused by the culpable negligence of Nicolas Dominique. However, the defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide as I have previously explained those terms. In order to convict of manslaughter by intentional act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had a premeditated intent to cause death. I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous ef fects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act o”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.