454 So. 2d 1297 - State v. Bryan’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably 486 So. 2d 106 - State v. Lombard (1986), 530 So. 2d 615 - State v. Everett (1988)
40 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 Jackson v. Virginia · 408 So. 2d 1255 - State v. Dewey · State v. Tompkins · 440 So. 2d 205 - State v. Anderson · State v. Gatson
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A homicide which would be murder . . . (first degree murder . . . or . . . second degree murder), . . . [was] committed in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection. Provocation shall not reduce a homicide to manslaughter if the jury finds that the offender's blood had actually cooled, or that an average person's blood would have cooled, at the time the offense was committed[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“As was stated before, the evidence clearly shows that this entire incident was provoked by the victim. Robert Lee Ross, the ‘only eyewitness to the original altercation, felt that Thompson was merely “playing around’’ ■ when he backed the two men into the corner with a huge butcher knife. The defendant, however, had known the victim for only two weeks and had no objective signs which would indicate to them that the victim was only acting in jest. When a person is backed into' a comer at knife point and must repeatedly avoid the thrust of a huge knife, and where there is no objective signs to indicate that the aggressor is acting in jest, we feel that the ordinary person would have cause for apprehension and would likely take reasonable steps to protect himself. Although we |iahave already concluded that the steps taken by the defendant were not reasonable, we do find that the circumstances were such that there was a sufficient provocation to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection. We find that the defendant acted in sudden passion or heat of blood in the killing of Jeff Thompson, and that no rational trier of fact could have concluded otherwise. This view is reinforced by the fact that .there-had been no prior history of trouble between the two men, which makes this Court hard pressed to find any motive for the killing other than a reaction to the provocation of the victim.”
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.