224 So. 2d 296 - Bailey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 18 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the words of our Supreme Court, the appellants' attorneys were `not required to pursue a completely useless course when the judge had announced in advance that it would be fruitless.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 903 So. 2d 293 - Dante v. State · 338 So. 2d 1328 - Bell v. State

2. “‘The Court further instructs you that the gravamen of the offense of statutory burglary is the breaking into and entering of a dwelling house of another with the intent to commit a felony therein. ‘It is not necessary for the State to prove premeditation where the death of the person killed is committed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate burglary. So that, if you find in the evidence, that the defendant killed Gayle Sherry Sterne while engaged in the commission of burglary, or the attempt to commit burglary, then the defendant should be adjudged guilty of murder in the first degree as the result of the perpetration of, or the attempt to perpetrate burglary.’ If appellant were being tried for burglary, it could hardly be said that he could have a fair trial under these instructions. The jury is left to its own devices as to what constitutes breaking and entering and as to the character of the felonious intent that is required. As to the precise intent that appellant was alleged to have, these instructions fail to identify the felony that he allegedly intended to commit or even to define the term ‘felony,’ in the abstract. It is true that the court agreed to give such instructions and the defendant’s trial counsel agreed to prepare same but failed to do so. But this failure of counsel does not relieve the court of the duty to give all charges necessary to a fair trial of the issues. We hold that since proof of these elements was necessary in order to convic”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 250 So. 2d 333 - Wright v. State

3. “Determination of degree of offense. If the indictment or information charges an offense which is divided into degrees, without specifying the degree, the jurors may find the defendant guilty of any degree of the offense charged; if the indictment or information charges a particular degree the jurors may find the defendant guilty of the degree charged or of any lesser degree. The court shall in all such cases charge the jury as to the degrees of the offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 313 So. 2d 729 - Gilford v. State