615 So. 2d 668 - James v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Claims that the [jury] instruction ... is unconstitutionally vague are procedurally barred unless a specific objection on that ground is made at trial and pursued on appeal.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 847 So. 2d 438 - Walton v. State · 898 So. 2d 25 - Arbelaez v. State

2. “On appeal, on the other hand, we held that the facts did not support finding that aggravator. James, 453 So.2d at 792 . Striking that aggravator left four valid ones to be weighed against no mitigators, and we believe that the trial court's consideration of the invalid aggravator was harmless error. We cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that the invalid instruction did not affect the jury's consideration or that its recommendation would have been the same if the requested expanded instruction had been given. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's order as to the last issue regarding the constitutionality of the instruction on the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator. The trial court is directed to empanel a new jury, to hold a new sentencing proceeding, and to resentence James.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 655 So. 2d 74 - State v. Breedlove · James v. Singletary

3. “objected to the then-standard instruction at trial, asked for an expanded instruction, and argued on appeal against the constitutionality of the instruction his jury received”

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