569 So. 2d 1317 - Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the following are not inadmissible as evidence, even though the declarant is available as a witness: ... . (23) HEARSAY EXCEPTION; STATEMENT OF CHILD VICTIM OF SEXUAL ABUSE OR SEXUAL OFFENSE AGAINST A CHILD — (a) Unless the source of information or the method or circumstances by which the statement is reported indicates a lack of trustworthiness, an out-of-court statement made by a child victim with a physical, mental, emotional, or developmental age of 11 or less describing any act of child abuse, sexual abuse, or any other offense involving an unlawful sexual act, contact, intrusion, or penetration performed in the presence of, with, by, or on the declarant child, not otherwise admissible, is admissible in evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding if: 1. The court finds in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability. In making its determination, the court may consider the mental and physical age and maturity of the child, the nature and duration of the abuse or offense, the relationship of the child to the offender, the reliability of the assertion, the reliability of the child victim, and any other factor deemed appropriate; and 2. the child either: a. Testifies; or b. Is unavailable as a witness... . ... . (c) The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this subsection.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 586 So. 2d 1200 - Wade v. State

2. “evidence of injury to external female parts of the victim may be sufficient circumstantial evidence of penetration.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 704 So. 2d 569 - Barton v. State