52 So. 3d 1021 - State v. A.B.M.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The trial court set forth several aggravating factors. It found that the defendant’s conduct manifested cruelty to the victims, as the victims indicated that they were placed in “scary” situations by someone they trusted. The trial court emphasized that not only did the defendant use “his position or status to facilitate the commission of the offensefs,]” he used his position of authority to attempt to perpetuate the victims’ silence. It noted that the victims’ were vulnerable due to their ages and that they experienced significant emotional distress and psychological scarring. The trial court found some mitigating factors. It recognized that the defendant had no prior criminal record and that he would likely respond to probationary treatment. The trial court was also cognizant of the fact that the defendant was married for several years, had medical problems, and took care of his ailing mother and her husband. The trial court stated that it imposed consecutive sentences because “there have been three individual victims that have been abused on different occasions[.]” [[Image here]] 119The trial court proceeded to sentence the defendant to the same terms of incarceration previously imposed and ordered the sentences to run consecutively- After reviewing the record, we find that the defendant’s sentences are not excessive. Even given the consecutive nature of the penalties imposed on all three counts, the defendant’s total term of imprisonment only amounts to one-fifth of his p”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 161 So. 3d 701 - State v. Urena

2. “[T]he commission by anyone over the age of seventeen of any lewd or lascivious act upon the person or in the presence of any child under the age of seventeen, where there is an age difference of greater than two years between the two persons, with the intention of arousing or gratifying the sexual desires of either person, by the use of force, violence, duress, menace, psychological intimidation, threat of great bodily harm, or by the use of influence by virtue of a position of control or supervision over the juvenile. Lack of knowledge of the juvenile’s age shall not be a defense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 161 So. 3d 701 - State v. Urena