Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 359 So. 2d 864 - Henry v. State

359 So. 2d 864 - Henry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
2
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 365 So. 2d 701 - Castor v. State (1978), 492 So. 2d 360 - Garcia v. State (1986)

44 state decisions

30019781980199020002010decided

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 Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Waggonner · 71 Cal. 2d 761 - People v. Schader · Commonwealth v. Perkins · Commonwealth v. Boone · 172 So. 2d 824 - Hedges 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In Hysler v. State, 85 Fla. 153 , 95 So. 573 (1923), this Court established the principle that it is proper for a judge to limit the repetition of the charges to those specially requested as any additional instruction might needlessly protract the proceedings.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he specific holding in Hedges was that where a jury specifically requests reinstruction on the "different degrees" of the charges levied, and, accordingly, the court reinstructs on manslaughter and the other degrees of unlawful homicide, the court is then compelled to reinstruct on excusable and justifiable homicide as a necessary concomitant of manslaughter. The jury in Hedges was given an incomplete instruction with regard to manslaughter. In the instant case, the jury was not reinstructed on manslaughter but was recharged exclusively on first and second degree murder. When the initial jury instruction on manslaughter was given, so were the charges on justifiable and excusable homicide. Consequently, petitioner's reliance upon Hedges v. State, supra, is misplaced. Petitioner's argument that the jury's understanding of any "unlawful killing" must necessarily depend on its comprehension of "lawful killings" is persuasive. It is obvious that before the defendant can be convicted of any unlawful killing, the jury must conclude that the homicide was not lawful. However, in the case sub judice, it is apparent that the jury had already made that determination by requesting merely a clarification of the "difference" between first and second degree murder. Had they not determined whether the homicide was lawful or unlawful, they would have solicited reinstructions on justifiable and excusable homicide or the other degrees of unlawful homicide, or both. We can contemplate numerous”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"[Manslaughter] is in the nature of a residual offense. If a homicide is either justifiable or excusable it cannot be manslaughter. Consequently, in any given situation, if an act results in a homicide that is either justifiable or excusable as defined by statute, a not guilty verdict necessarily ensues. The result is that in order to supply a complete definition of manslaughter as a degree of unlawful homicide it is necessary to include also a definition of the exclusions." Hedges v. State, supra, at 826.”
    2 later decisions 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.