424 So. 2d 43 - Corujo v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Coercion is a recognized defense to a criminal charge except where an innocent life is taken. 21 Am. Jur.2d Criminal Law § 148 (1981). In Hall v. State, 136 Fla. 644 , 187 So. 392 (1939), our supreme court held that one may be excused from the commission of a crime if his acts were done under the compulsion or coercion of a real, imminent and impending danger or of what he had reasonable grounds to believe was a real, imminent and impending danger. If there is evidence to support a theory of coercion, the jury must be properly instructed on the defense. Koontz v. State, 204 So.2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). [[Image here]] One of the requirements of the defense is that the coercion must be continuous and that the defendant must have no reasonable opportunity to escape the compulsion without committing the crime. Koontz v. State. The threat of future harm does not suffice. Cawthon v. State, 382 So.2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Aljak v. State · 567 So. 2d 456 - Gahley v. State

2. “temporal, i.e. about to take place, but includes whether there is, no matter the lapse of time, a reasonable opportunity to escape the compulsion without committing the crime.”

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