Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 397 SO2D 903 - Straight v. State

Straight v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

146
cited by 146 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

140 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 146 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2018 · most notably Proffitt v. Wainwright (1982), Heiney v. State (1984)

140 state decisions

5901981199020002010decided

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 Dobbert v. Florida · Rodriguez v. New York · Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe · International Ass'n of Machinists v. Duckworth · 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams 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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “presumed harmful error because of the danger that a jury will take the bad character or propensity to crime thus demonstrated as evidence of guilt of the crime charged.”
    21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[w]hen a suspected person in any manner attempts to escape or evade a threatened prosecution by flight, concealment, resistance to lawful arrest, or other indications after the fact of a desire to evade prosecution, such fact is admissible, being relevant to the consciousness of guilt which may be inferred from such circumstance.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[I]it is generally harmful error "to admit evidence of other or collateral crimes independent of and unconnected with the crime for which the defendant is on trial." Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 685 , 106 So. 479, 488 (1925). As stated above, the reason for this rule, establishing the harmfulness of the error in admitting a certain class of irrelevant evidence, is: Evidence that the defendant has committed a similar crime, or one equally heinous, will frequently prompt a more ready belief by the jury that he might have committed the one with which he is charged, thereby predisposing the mind of the juror to believe the prisoner guilty. Id. at 685 , 106 So. at 488 .”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.