539 So. 2d 535 - State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We are thus left to address the defendant's claims that he is prejudiced by the information. He argues that the information denies him due process because it is inadequate to enable him to prepare a defense. He further contends that it exposes him to the possibility of multiple prosecutions for the same offenses. We find no merit in these claims. First, his due process claim that the information fails to inform him of the time, place, and mode of commission in actuality is an argument concerning the credibility of the state's witnesses and the sufficiency of the state's case in chief. Second, regarding the double jeopardy claim, the defendant is protected as a matter of law from another prosecution for the same offense during the time period alleged in the information. Beamon, 298 So.2d 376 . Consequently, the defendant has failed to demonstrate any prejudice to his cause resulting from the time frame alleged.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 592 So. 2d 338 - State v. Dell'Orfano

2. “It is not necessary that the exact date of the offense be alleged in an information if that date is not known. It is sufficient to allege that the offense occurred within stated specific time limits.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Alonso v. State

3. “It is proper for the trial court to dismiss an information on the basis of time frame specificity when the state had the ability to be more specific but failed to do so.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 569 So. 2d 492 - State v. Yzaguirre