257 So. 2d 889 - Honchell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2011 · most notably Herrera v. State (1988), 511 So. 2d 583 - Huhn v. State (1987)
33 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 Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz · Roberson v. State · Mercer v. State · Spangler v. Florida State Turnpike Authority · Duke 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[B]efore the `co-conspirator rule' may be invoked there must first be independent evidence of the existence of a conspiracy, and of the objecting party's participation in it. In other words, proof of a conspiracy is necessary for the purpose of establishing the criminal liability of the conspirators for the unlawful acts of their co-conspirators in furtherance of the common cause. See Duke v. State, 134 Fla. 456 , 185 So. 422 (1938); Rogers v. United States, 334 F.2d 83 (5th Cir.1964), cert. denied, Levine v. United States, 380 U.S. 915 , 85 S.Ct. 892 , 13 L.Ed.2d 800 ; 6 Fla.Jur. Conspiracy §§ 17 and 18." 257 So.2d 889, 890 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Damon v. State · State v. Morales“"[T]he usual rule that upon the trial of an indictment for a substantive offense, evidence is admissible to prove a conspiracy to commit the substantive crime charged in the indictment ( although no conspiracy is charged in such indictment ) on the theory that the principal crime charged may itself be established by first proving the formation and execution of a pre-existing conspiracy out of which its accomplishment was realized in the completion of the substantive offense." (Emphasis supplied.) (p. 516)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Damon v. State“While the existence of a conspiracy and the connection of the defendant therewith normally must precede the introduction of evidence of acts and declarations of the parties thereto, the trial judge in his discretion may permit the order of proofs to be reversed, admitting evidence of the acts and declarations of the coconspirators before proof is given of the conspiracy itself. However, this is conditional on the prosecutor subsequently furnishing adequate proof of the conspiracy itself.”
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.