25 So. 3d 536 - Orme v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Fennie v. State, 855 So.2d 597, 608 (Fla. 2003), we reiterated the procedural requirements that a trial court must follow in its sentencing order in a capital case. A trial judge must (1) expressly evaluate in his or her written order each mitigating circumstance proposed by the defendant to determine whether it is supported by the evidence and whether, in the case of nonstatutory factors, it is truly of a mitigating nature; (2) assign a weight to each aggravating factor and mitigating factor properly established; (3) weigh the established aggravating circumstances against the established mitigating circumstances; and (4) provide a detailed explanation of the result of the weighing process. With regard to mitigating circumstances, “A trial court may reject a claim that a mitigating circumstance has been proven provided that the record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the rejection.” Moreover, in Trease v. State, 768 So.2d 1050, 1055 (Fla. 2000), we receded from our decision in Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415, 420 (Fla. 1990), and held that trial courts may assign no weight to a mitigating factor. In doing so, we recognized that a trial judge “may not preclude from consideration any evidence regarding a mitigating circumstance that is proffered by a defendant in order to receive a sentence of less than death.” However, there are circumstances where although a mitigator may be relevant and must be considered by the trial judge because it is generally reco”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Edward Allen Covington v. State of Florida

2. “On direct appeal, Orme raised eight issues. [n.1] This Court affirmed Orme’s conviction of first-degree murder and the sentence of death. [Orme I, 677 So.2d at 261-64 .] Orme filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. That Court denied review on January 13, 1997. Orme v. Florida, 519 U.S. 1079 , 117 S.Ct. 742 , 136 L.Ed.2d 680 (1997). [N.l] The following issues were raised: (1) the trial court should have directed a judgment of acquittal on grounds the case against him was circumstantial and the State had failed to disprove all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; (2) Orme’s statements to officers should have been suppressed on grounds he was too intoxicated with drugs to knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to silence; (3) death is not a proportionate penalty because Orme’s will was overborne by drug abuse, and because any fight between the victim and him was a “lover’s quarrel”; (4) Orme’s mental state at the time of the murder was such that he could not form a “design” to inflict a high degree of suffering on the victim; (5) the trial court erred by failing to weigh in mitigation the fact that Orme had no significant prior criminal history; (6) the trial court erred in declining to give a special instruction that acts perpetrated on the victim after her death are not relevant to [the HAC aggravatojr; (7) the instruction on [HAC] violated the dictates of Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 , 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992); and ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. & SC14-22 Roderick Michael Orme v. State of Florida and Roderick Michael Orme v. Julie L. Jones, etc. – Revised Opinion