421 So. 2d 851 - State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Defendant’s explanation to arresting officers that he was ‘picking the prescription up for a friend’ suggested that he did not do so ‘knowingly’, and the state bears the burden of proving every element of the offense. “In prior cases in which this court has reversed convictions for obtaining controlled substances with forged prescriptions, the evidence, although sufficient to prove that forged prescriptions were used, was insufficient to prove the essential scienter element. Although the instant appeal also presents a case in which the forged prescription was presented to the pharmacist by a person other than the person purportedly named in the prescription to receive the drug, defendant’s statement concerning his codeine addiction formed the basis from which a rational juror could draw the inference of guilty knowledge and could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly used a forged prescription to obtain the drug to which he was addicted.” (Emphasis added)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Scott

2. “[i]n proving an intelligent waiver of the rights to silence, self-incrimination, and counsel, the state need not show that defendant was aware of the full evidentiary significance of his statements.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 521 So. 2d 629 - State v. Williams