Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 419 So. 2d 1067 - Daugherty v. State

419 So. 2d 1067 - Daugherty v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
November 2000
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2000 · most notably Dugger v. Adams (1989), Fitzgerald v. Virginia (1983)

23 state decisions

190198219902000decided

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 Blanton v. General Electric Credit Corp. · Johnson v. Florida · 346 So. 2d 998 - Elledge v. State · Doe v. Delaware · 395 So. 2d 492 - Peek 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Counsel for the Defense presented testimony as to the defendant's mental condition and/or capacity at the time of the offense. The opinions of those witnesses were based, in part, on psychological tests interviews with the defendant and review of the defendant's school, prison and medical/psychiatric records. There was no evidence presented that C.A.T. Scans, X-Rays etc. or testing by qualified neurologists ever took place. The witnesses for the Defense opined that the defendant has "lesions on his brains" which resulted in organic brain damage. They further opined that this condition existed at the time of the offense and that the use of alcohol and/or drugs would have caused this defendant to act in a violent rage-like state when confronted with a stressful situation and as a result of his "organic brain damage," the defendant would be under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance and could not appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of law. The Court rejects these opinions and points out that the defendant gave no information to these witnesses as to: (a) Whether he was using alcohol during or before the commission of this crime; (b) Whether he was using alcohol during or before the crime was committed; (c) His mental state prior to, during, or after the event. There is no testimony in this record, from any witness, that the defendant was exhibiting any of the behavioral characteristics at the time of the murder”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is clear that the Legislature referred to `previous convictions' and not `previous crimes.'”
    1 later decision 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.