574 So. 2d 76 - Bruno v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
1 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably 808 So. 2d 145 - Darling v. State (2002), 586 So. 2d 1024 - Wright v. State (1991)
1 district · 40 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Gardner v. Florida · 561 So. 2d 554 - Pope v. State · 506 So. 2d 1039 - In re Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 6C(1) · 573 So. 2d 306 - State v. Smith
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he judge concluded that there were only three aggravating circumstances which could be considered in passing sentence because he concluded that the circumstances listed as (a), (b) and (c) were based on the same aspect of the criminal episode. We agree with the trial court that only three aggravating circumstances were proper for consideration, although we arrive at this conclusion in a somewhat different manner. The aggravating circumstance of a prior violent felony was inapplicable because the felony in question was the contemporaneous conviction of the robbery of Merlano. However, the trial court did properly find that the murder was committed during a robbery and was committed for pecuniary gain. These two circumstances are based on the same aspect of the criminal episode and should properly be considered as a single aggravating factor. The evidence was insufficient to support the finding that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest. Standing alone, the fact that the victim could identify the murderer does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the elimination of a witness was a dominant motive for the killing. . . . . ... Therefore, we conclude that the murder was aggravated by the three following valid factors: (i) that the murder was committed during a robbery and for pecuniary gain; (ii) that the murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and (iii) that the murder was cold, calculated, and premeditated.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Statements suggesting leniency are only objectionable if they establish an express quid pro quo bargain for the confession.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“extreme mental or emotional disturbance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.