447 So. 2d 570 - State v. Heath’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably 626 So. 2d 913 - State v. Bibb (1993), State v. Pravata (1988)
29 state decisions
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Barker v. Wingo · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · American Sterilizer Co. v. Sybron Corp.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this case the defendant has entered a plea of `not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity'. Because of such a plea, you must first determine whether the defendant committed the offense charged or an offense responsive thereto. Unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense charged or an offense responsive thereto, you must find the defendant not guilty. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense charged or an offense responsive thereto, then you must determine whether he was insane at the time the offense was committed. The defendant has the burden of proving his insanity at the time of the commission of the offense by a preponderance of the evidence. Thus, the defendant must establish that it is more probable than not that he was insane at the time of the commission of the crime. Insanity at the time of the commission of a crime exempts the offender from criminal responsibility. If the circumstances indicate that because of a mental disease or mental defect the defendant was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong with reference to the conduct in question, the defendant must be found not guilty by reason of insanity. In determining the question of the sanity or insanity of the defendant at the time of the commission of an offense, you must consider all of the evidence bearing on the defendant's mental condition, including the testimony of experts and of other witnesses, and the conduc”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[I]t is left to the factual determination of the jury to determine whether the defendant was capable of knowing right from wrong with regard to the conduct complained of. All of the evidence, including both expert and lay testimony and conduct and action of the defendant, should be considered by the jury in determining sanity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Despite defendant's lack of a prior record, we do not consider the sentence imposed so grossly disproportionate to the crime as to shock our sense of justice. Therefore, we do not find the sentence excessive.”
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.