531 So. 2d 124 - Hildwin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 30 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellant was arrested after cashing a check purportedly written to him by one Vronzettie Cox, a forty-two-year-old woman whose body had been found in the trunk of a car, which was hidden in dense woods in Hernando County. Death was due to strangulation; she also had been raped. Evidence indicated she had been killed in a different locale from where her body was found. Her purse, from which some contents had been removed, was found in dense woods, directly on line between her car and appellant's house. A pair of semenencrusted women's underpants was found on a laundry bag in her car, as was a sweat-stained wash rag. Analysis showed the semen and sweat came from nonsecretor (i.e., one who does not secrete blood into other bodily fluids). Appellant, a white male, was found to be a nonsecretor; there was testimony that white male nonsecretors make up eleven percent of the population. The victim had been missing for four days when her body was found. The man she lived with, one Haverty, said she had left their home to wash clothes at a coin laundry. To do so, she had to pass a convenience store. Appellant's presence in the area of the store on the date of her disappearance had come about this way: He and two women had gone to a drive-in movie, where they had spent all their money. Returning home early in the morning, their car ran out of gas. A search of the roadside yielded pop bottles, which they redeemed for cash and bought some gasoline. However, they still could not start th”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 84 So. 3d 180 - Hildwin v. State · 141 So. 3d 1178 - Paul Christopher Hildwin v. State of Florida

2. “At the outset, it must be remembered that there is a different standard for judging the admissibility and relevance of evidence in the penalty phase of a capital case, where the focus is substantially directed toward the defendant's character. See § 921.141(1), Fla. Stat. (1987) In Elledge v. State, 346 So.2d 998, 1001 (Fla.1977), we pointed out that the purpose of considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances is to engage in a character analysis of the defendant to ascertain whether the ultimate penalty is called for in his or her particular case. Thus, evidence that would not be admissible during the guilt phase could properly be considered in the penalty phase.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 117 So. 3d 742 - Hilton v. State · 581 So. 2d 40 - Valle v. State

3. “[D]uring the penalty phase of a capital case, the state may rebut defense evidence of the defendant's nonviolent nature by means of direct evidence of specific acts of violence committed by the defendant provided, however, that in the absence of a conviction for any such acts, the jury shall not be told of any arrests or criminal charges arising therefrom.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 581 So. 2d 40 - Valle v. State · 801 So. 2d 78 - Perry v. State