56 So. 3d 37 - McCoy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited
17 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 981 So. 2d 449 - Martinez v. State · 521 So. 2d 106 - Smith v. State · State v. Miller · State v. Blocker · O'HARA v. State
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“controlled substance was lawfully obtained”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“They want you to say, so what, they’re her husband’s pills, of course she can have them, but you know what you won’t hear, when the Judge reads you the law, you won’t hear that she had a right to have them because, after all, Hydroco-done is a controlled substance. [[Image here]] You will not hear from the judge that it is a defense for this defendant to have the pills because her husband has a prescription. You will not hear that. If you do not hear that, then there is no defense in the law for this defendant to have the pills.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We recognize that where the challenged error involves jury instructions dealing with an affirmative defense, the fundamental error doctrine “ ‘should be applied only in rare cases where a jurisdictional error appears or where the interests of justice present a compelling demand for its application.’ ” [Martinez v. State, 981 So.2d 449, 455 (Fla.2008) (quoting Smith v. State, 521 So.2d 106, 108 (Fla.1988)).] However, because the defense constituted appellant’s only defense to the charge and there was substantial, albeit conflicting, evidence concerning the defense along with the egregiously incorrect argument from the prosecutor regarding the defense, this is one of those rare cases in which fundamental error has occurred. Accordingly, we reverse and find no need to reach appellant’s third issue asserting ineffective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s failure to request the prescription defense instruction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.