399 So. 2d 505 - Potts v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
February 1985
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 246 So. 2d 771 - Richardson v. State · 382 So. 2d 395 - Brey v. State · 360 So. 2d 46 - Miller v. State · Lockhart 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that this court will not countenance trial by ambush. The state has an affirmative duty, upon demand, to furnish full discovery. In particular, when the defendant has made an oral statement, the state must do more than answer "yes" on a printed discovery form. Rule 3.220(a)(1)(iii), Fla.R.Crim.P., requires the state to divulge "the substance of any oral statements ... together with the name and address of each witness to the statements." The printed discovery form now in use in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit fails to satisfy this aspect of the rule. As the case at bar indicates, the present format of the local discovery form can be a trap for the prosecution and the defense alike; it should be corrected to assure full compliance with the rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Written, recorded, and/or oral statements of Defendant.”
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.