Henderson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably 503 So. 2d 803 - Wetz v. State (1987), 606 So. 2d 1132 - Parker v. State (1992)
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 249 So. 2d 414 - Curry v. State · 293 So. 2d 430 - Fields v. State · Sanders v. State · 220 So. 2d 833 - Matula v. State · 413 So. 2d 730 - Martin 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . where the evidence is purely circumstantial, the trial court must grant a `two-theory' instruction . . .”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Court instructs the Jury that if there be a fact or circumstance in this case susceptible of two interpretations, one favorable and the other unfavorable to [Moise], when the Jury has considered such fact or circumstance with all other evidence, there is a reasonable doubt as to the correct interpretation, then you, the Jury, must resolve such doubt in favor of the accused, and place upon such fact or circumstance the interpretation most favorable to the accused.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“INSTRUCTION D-2 The Court instructs the jury that you are bound, in deliberating upon this case, to give the defendant the benefit of reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt that rises out of the evidence or the lack of evidence in this case. There is always reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt when the evidence simply makes it probable that the defendant is guilty. Mere probability of guilt will never warrant you to convict the defendant. It is only when on the whole the evidence you are able to say on your oaths, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty that the law will permit you to find him guilty. You might be able to say that you believe him to be guilty, and yet, if you are not able to say on your oaths, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is guilty, it is your sworn duty to find the defendant “Not Guilty.” INSTRUCTION D-5 If you can reconcile the evidence upon any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the Defendant’s innocence, you should do so and find him not guilty.”
3 later decisions 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.