492 So. 2d 1317 - Kokal v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 12 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “• In rejecting the “extreme mental and emotional disturbance” mitigating circumstance, Fla. Stat. § 921.141 (6)(b), the judge found that “the defendant was at all material times in complete control of his mental and emotional faculties acting deliberately and with pre-meditation.” • In rejecting the “substantially impaired” capacity mitigating circumstance, Fla. Stat. § 921.141 (6)(f), the judge recognized that the defendant had “testified that during the evening prior to the death of Russell ... he had consumed a large quantity of alcohol^] ... smoked a number of marijuana cigarettes[, and] ... was highly intoxicated.” The judge also found, however, that “[t]he defendant’s statement to his friend, [Mosley], contained no evidence of intoxication [and] ... was in great detail including his thought process at the time of the killing of Russell”; “[t]he testimony of the co-participant, [O’Kelly], does not support intoxication of the defendant by either alcohol or drugs [and showed] ... deliberate, calculated acts and conduct by the defendant during the course of the robbery and murder of Russell”; and “the defendant proved to this Court, by his statements and his acts, as well as his demeanor on the witness stand, that he is an individual of above average intelligence, knowledge, and well oriented as to time, space and relationships and well able but unwilling to conform his conduct to the requirements of law and with an ability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.” • I”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kokal v. Secretary, Department of Corrections · 718 So. 2d 138 - Kokal v. Dugger

2. “Kokal and a companion picked up a hitchhiker about midnight on the 29th or 30th of September 1983 and drove to a beach park near Jacksonville. When they alighted from the truck, the hitchhiker was struck with a pool cue belonging to Kokal and robbed. The victim was then marched about 100 feet at gunpoint where he was beaten unconscious with the pool cue as he pleaded for his life and then was killed with a single shot from a .357 revolver. When the body was discovered the following morning, the police initially believed, and the news media reported, that the victim had been beaten to death. An autopsy revealed that the gunshot was the cause of death, but this information was restricted to the doctor performing the autopsy and to investigating personnel. The following morning Kokal was apprehended by a police officer after fleeing in his companion's truck from a gas station without paying for gas. When confronted by the police officer and gas station attendant, Kokal offered to pay for the stolen gas, but did not have sufficient cash. When asked for identification, Kokal produced his own Florida driver's license, a Colorado driver's license belonging to his companion, a New York driver's license belonging to the victim, and an Arizona vehicle registration for the truck which was titled to his companion. The officer determined that the truck had not been stolen in Florida but was unable to check through the National Crime Information Computer because of system outage. He arrest”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 721 So. 2d 1155 - Guzman v. State · 901 So. 2d 766 - Kokal v. State

3. “The victim was beaten unconscious and posed no threat to Kokal’s escape, but he did pose a threat to later identification of the robber(s). Kokal’s own statement to his friend to the effect that dead men can’t talk confirms that the murder was committed to avoid or prevent arrest. We have found this aggravating circumstance present in similar cases. Appellant’s argument that the murder was not especially heinous, atrocious or cruel because death was instantaneous overlooks the events preceding death. The murder was preceded by a violent robbery, a march at gunpoint to the murder site, and a vicious and painful beating during which the victim, in anticipation of his fate, unsuccessfully pleaded for his life. The facts surrounding the murder also show beyond a reasonable doubt the heightened premeditation necessary for a finding of cold, calculated and premeditated. The high level of visceral viciousness with which the murder was carried out is not inconsistent with the coldly calculated decision to eliminate the witness by beating him into unconsciousness prior to the execution-type killing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kokal v. Secretary, Department of Corrections