458 So. 2d 445 - State v. Horton’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 2018
11 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 278 So. 2d 781 - State v. Moore · State v. Washington · State v. Celestine · 404 So. 2d 907 - State v. Robinson · 307 So. 2d 594 - State v. Banks
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses in an indictment or bill of information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order separate trials, grant a severance of offenses, or provide whatever other relief justice requires.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses....."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The three armed robberies with which the defendant before us is charged are not signature crimes, but they are similar offenses committed within a three week period within a few feet of each other. The identification of the defendant in each case is highly relevant in the other cases, and is said by the defendant to be a real issue in the case. Willie Clay knew defendant, saw him commit not one, but two robberies, and identified his picture. Each identification reinforced the other and reduced the chance of error. This is what is meant when the court says "the prejudicial effect of the evidence of other crimes is overcome by its probative value." It may be more accurate to say that the probative value of the other crimes evidence is so great that society is vindicated (justice is served) for lumping the three offenses together, and depriving the defendant of his right to a trial for one offense only." State v. Horton, supra. p. 448.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Horton
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.