276 So. 2d 846 - Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “"Appellant was informed against for the crime of robbery of Miss Virginia Brown, an employee of Pioneer Cleaners. The jury convicted him and he was sentenced to ten years in prison. Neither the public defender's nor the State's brief was of any assistance to the court in this appeal. The public defender filed a brief commonly referred to as an ` Anders ' brief, alleging that they could find no arguable support for the appeal. The State agreed with the public defender." * * * * * * "This court has rather liberally construed Williams v. State, supra, and has been called upon numerous times to interpret the principles laid down in that case. We reiterate here what we believe this case stands for: `[E]vidence revealing other crimes is admissible if it casts light upon the character of the act under investigation by showing motive, intent, absence of mistake, common scheme, identity or a system or general pattern of criminality so that the evidence of the prior offenses would have a relevant or a material bearing on some essential aspect of the offense being tried.' Williams v. State, 110 So.2d at 662. "From the record it appears that the State adduced sufficient proof that the appellant robbed Miss Brown. The State also proved that Mingo's Food Store had been robbed. Although there was some conflict as to the testimony regarding identification, the jury could certainly have believed that the appellant robbed Mingo's. But these are two separate and distinct crimes. One is not rele”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 292 So. 2d 395 - Drayton v. State · 290 So. 2d 30 - State v. Davis

2. ““[P]atently invalid convictions ought not be affirmed on the basis of technicalities which cannot in the end thwart effective appellate review once the appellant gets the due process to which he is entitled.” 276 So. 2d at 849 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 6 Kan. App. 2d 688 - State v. Puckett · 290 So. 2d 30 - State v. Davis

3. “Technically, the Attorney General is right. We did consider a point not raised by the appellant in his brief. In fact, the former Public Defender for the Twelfth Circuit did not raise any point in his brief. We deny rehearing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 290 So. 2d 30 - State v. Davis