Butler v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]o secure a conviction ... for armed robbery while carrying a “firearm or other deadly weapon” or for armed robbery while carrying a “weapon,” respectively, the state must present evidence which would be legally sufficient to permit a jury to conclude that the defendant actually carried a “firearm,” “other deadly weapon” or a “weapon.” While the state may meet this burden by the presentation of circumstantial evidence, it may not do so by presenting evidence of nothing more than the victim’s subjective belief that the defendant possessed a “firearm,” “other deadly weapon” or “weapon.” In fact, it is not necessary that the victim “even be aware that a robber is armed, so long as the perpetrator has the weapon in his possession during the offense.” State v. Baker, 452 So.2d 927 (Fla.1984). “Robbers commonly merely imply the possession of a weapon in order to bolster their threat. [However, t]hat implication cannot amount to proof of the possession.” Ryder v. State, 464 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bell v. State · State v. David Loren Curry

2. “Florida courts have generally utilized the statutory definition of "weapon" provided in section 790.001(13)[ [1] ] to determine whether a particular object constitutes a "weapon" for purposes of section 812.13(2)(b).... Using this approach, courts determine that a device used in the course of a robbery qualifies as a weapon only if it is either one of the objects specifically delineated in the statute or a deadly weapon.... Where the instrument is not a firearm as statutorily defined [or a specifically delineated weapon], Florida courts apply an objective test and look to the nature and actual use of the instrument and not to the subjective fear of the victim or intent of the perpetrator.... The question is whether the [instrument] was of a nature or used in a manner that it could have resulted in death or great bodily harm.... The state must prove that the instrument used as a weapon was likely to cause great bodily harm because of the way it was used during the crime.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 679 So. 2d 792 - Blanco v. State · 877 So. 2d 893 - Holley v. State

3. “Neither of the employees actually saw a gun, or any portion of one. While both believed that appellant had a gun, both conceded that he could have had any object having a shape similar to a gun barrel under the pants, such as a length of pipe, for instance.”

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