Roberson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 605 So. 2d 240 - Seal v. Miller · 604 So. 2d 243 - Lentz v. State

2. “If the witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to the clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. * * * * * * Comment The traditional rule regarding lay opinions has been, with some exceptions, to exclude them from evidence. Rule 701 is a departure from the traditional rule. It favors the admission of lay opinions when two considerations are met. The first consideration is the familiar requirement of first-hand knowledge or observation. The second consideration is that the witness' opinion must be helpful in resolving the issues. Rule 701, thus, provides flexibility when a witness has difficulty in expressing himself in language which does not reflect an opinion. Rule 701 is based on the recognition that there is often too thin a line between fact and opinion to determine which is which.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 605 So. 2d 240 - Seal v. Miller · 604 So. 2d 271 - Wells v. State

3. “The first prong of the test requires that the lay witness have first-hand knowledge or observation. This language is directed at a witness who was actually at the scene of the crime or accident. There is no question but that Officer Gardner did not see appellant in the store or touch the counter. Lay witnesses are permitted to give opinions, if based on the perception of the witness and helpful to a clear determination of a fact in issue... . Roberson, 569 So.2d at 694-95 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 605 So. 2d 240 - Seal v. Miller · 604 So. 2d 271 - Wells v. State