429 So. 2d 293 - Porter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 17 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “mere disagreement with the force to be given [mitigating evidence] is an insufficient basis for challenging a sentence.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 484 So. 2d 568 - Echols v. State · 497 So. 2d 1211 - Floyd v. State

2. “In our second review, we stated: On this appeal Porter again contends that the jury override does not meet the standard set out in Tedder v. State, 322 So.2d 908 (Fla.1975), where this Court held: "In order to sustain a sentence of death following a jury recommendation of life, the facts suggesting a sentence of death should be so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ." Id. at 910 . The record in this case supports the court's findings regarding the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. As noted by the trial court, the jury might well have been swayed by defense counsel's reading of an "extremely vivid and lurid" description of an electrocution to the jury. Additionally, the trial court had access to Schapp's deposition, which the jury did not see. This case, therefore, is similar to White v. State, 403 So.2d 331 (Fla.1981), where we affirmed a jury override. Defense counsel's description of an electrocution might well have been calculated to influence the recommendation of a life sentence through emotional appeal. On the facts of this case, we find, even according the jury recommendation its due deference, that these sentences meet the Tedder standard.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Porter v. State

3. “mandate of this Court required only that Porter be allowed to rebut, contradict or impeach Schapp's deposition testimony.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Porter v. Singletary