476 So. 2d 123 - Yohn v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 43 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An issue in this case is whether the defendant was legally insane when the crime allegedly was committed. You must assume he was sane unless the evidence causes you to have a reasonable doubt about his sanity. If the defendant was legally insane, he is not guilty. To find him legally insane, these three elements must be shown to the point you have a reasonable doubt about his insanity: 1. The defendant had a mental infirmity, defect or disease. 2. This condition caused the defendant to lose his ability to understand or reason accurately, and 3. Because of the loss of these abilities, the defendant: a. did not know what he was doing, or b. did not know what would result from his actions, or c. did not know it was wrong, although he knew what he was doing and its consequences. In determining the issue of insanity you may consider the testimony of expert and non-expert witnesses. The question you must answer is not whether the defendant is legally insane today, or has always been legally insane, but simply if the defendant was legally insane at the time the crime allegedly was committed.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Provenzano v. Singletary · 520 So. 2d 556 - Freund v. State

2. “It is true, as the state argues in a companion case to the instant case, Reese v. State, 476 So.2d 129 (Fla.1985), that the United States Supreme Court has held in Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977), that it is not unconstitutional to place the burden on a defendant to prove he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense. However, we have chosen not to place this burden of proof on the defendant in the state of Florida, but as we have said, to create a rebuttable presumption of sanity which if overcome, must be proven by the state just like any other element of the offense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 498 So. 2d 986 - Lentz v. State · 545 So. 2d 894 - State v. Cohen

3. “It is the law of Florida that all men are presumed sane, but where there is testimony of insanity sufficient to present a reasonable doubt of sanity in the minds of the jurors the presumption vanishes and the sanity of the accused must be proved by the prosecution as any other element of the offense, beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 479 So. 2d 274 - Walker v. State · 532 So. 2d 1290 - Miller v. State