Beckham v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 2009
4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 102 So. 2d 281 - Raulerson v. State · Robinson 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This was the gun found at the scene of the crime " constituted reversible error. Id. at 687 . Quite simply put, what occurred before the Esposito, Brown, and Beckham courts is significantly different from the exchange that took place in the case at bar. For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court. NOTES [1] The police were investigating this as an aggravated battery, but Thomas was ultimately charged with attempted murder. [2] The State has not argued that the error was harmless. Rather, the State argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial and that Thomas was not prejudiced by the lack of a curative instruction because he could have renewed his request. However, "the State's failure to argue harmlessness does not preclude an appellate court from applying the harmless error test, though it is not required to do so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thomas v. State“The defendant has also complained on appeal of the trial judge's repetition of the manslaughter charge in his instructions to the jury. It appears from the record that the trial judge, while instruction the jury, experienced some difficulty. As a result of this the manslaughter charge was given three times and it was given once again when the jury returned and expressed confusion as to the instructions. We believe that this repetition, although inadvertent, was harmfully prejudicial to defendant's case and that it constitutes additional grounds for reversal. [Emphasis added]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where there is simply a doubt, as here, that an accused has been prejudiced by a remark of the court, we must grant him a new trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thomas v. State
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.