483 So. 2d 761 - Raffone v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he facts demonstrate a clear discovery violation. The state lulled the defense into believing that it would prove one thing and then, at trial, it set out to prove another. The initial lab report which was the only such report issued prior to trial, indicated that all of the listed items had been tested and that only three had produced positive results. * * * * * * [A]lthough it is true that the seized drugs were available for testing by the defendants, there was no reason for them to do so. The initial report did not suggest incomplete testing, and more to the point, we believe that the defense is entitled to rely on the accuracy of such reports. * * * * * * Since it is clear that the state disclosed one set of results in the lab report and then attempted to prove something else at trial, we hold that the trial court was required to conduct a Richardson inquiry.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Walker v. State · 671 So. 2d 867 - McArthur v. State

2. “Reports or statements of experts made in connection with the particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments or comparisons. Rule 3.220(b)(1)(x), Fla.R.Crim.P.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 566 So. 2d 856 - Copeland v. State