606 So. 2d 669 - Keys v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Florida courts have long adhered to the rule proscribing the fact-finder from basing an inference upon an inference in order to arrive at a conclusion of fact. See Chestnut v. Robinson, 85 Fla. 87 , 95 So. 428 (1923); Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 122 Fla. 567 , 166 So. 442 (1935); Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 73 So.2d 403 (Fla.1954); Sirmons v. Pittman, 138 So.2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). The purpose of this rule is to protect against verdicts or judgments based upon speculation. Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 73 So.2d at 407 . See also Sirmons v. Pittman, 138 So.2d 765, 771 (An inference recognizable in law cannot be based upon evidence that is so uncertain or speculative as to raise merely a conjecture or possibility.) In criminal cases, the rule has been stated thusly: Where two or more inferences in regard to the existence of criminal intent and criminal acts must be drawn from the evidence and then pyramided to prove the offense charged, the evidence lacks the conclusive nature to support the conviction. Collins v. State, 438 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also Weeks v. State, 492 So.2d 719 ([Fla.] 1st DCA 1986), rev. dismissed, 503 So.2d 328 (Fla.1987) (Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient when it requires pyramiding of inferences to arrive at a conclusion of guilt.). An exception to the rule has been recognized where the basic inference is established to the exclusion of any other reasonable inference or theory. Voelker v. Combined Ins”

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

2. “[T]he trial court’s flight instruction erroneously elevated the base inference, from which the jury was to draw the ultimate inference of guilt, to the dignity of an established fact notwithstanding other reasonable inferences permissible under the circumstances proven in this record, resulting in the impermissible pyramiding of inferences.”

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

3. “assuming there has been no break in custody.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 28 Cal. 4th 1007 - People v. Storm