Headrick 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. ““Gauged by this standard, [the Williams rule] the challenged evidence in the case sub judice was admissible. The evidence indicated that all the burglaries were committed by the same people; that the stolen articles were mostly, if not all, colored T.V. sets; that they were all ‘warehoused’ at the same place; that all the burglaries occurred within a contemporary time limit (two in November, 1967; one in December, 1967; one in January, 1968; and two in March, 1968); that all the robberies were reasonably within the same accessible area geographically (four in Tampa; one in St. Petersburg; and one in Gainesville, Florida) ; and that the same general pattern or modus operandi existed in the extraneous burglaries as was present in the instant burglary. Thus, the test of relevancy was met because it tended to show ‘plan, scheme or design’ even though suggesting the commission of independent crimes. In other words, to again use the language of Williams ‘such testimony revealed a criminal course that the defendant was following and reflected a pattern of operation corresponding to that employed in the case then at bar’. % jjs ‡ % Appellant Headrick not having clearly demonstrated error here in the admission of evidence as to the extraneous burglaries, and that being the only question urged, before this Court, the judgment appealed must be and is— Affirmed.” (Emphasis ours.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Headrick v. State · 343 So. 2d 1340 - Whiteman v. State