620 So. 2d 237 - Roark v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 2015
7 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 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · Wright v. Wright · 591 So. 2d 178 - Florida Bar re Corbin · Pinkerton v. McCotter · 513 So. 2d 122 - State v. Fundora
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“were related only in that they were sex offenses occurring within the same seven-month period, the victims were related to each other, and the defendant allegedly was guilty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The justifications for the consolidation of charges are convenience and the preservation of the courts' valuable resources. However, practicality and efficiency cannot outweigh the defendant's right to a fair trial. The danger in improper consolidation lies in the fact that evidence relating to each of the crimes may have the effect of bolstering the proof of the other. While the testimony in one case standing alone may be insufficient to convince a jury of the defendant's guilt, evidence that the defendant may also have committed another crime can have the effect of tipping the scales. Therefore, the court must be careful that there is a meaningful relationship between the charges of two separate crimes before permitting them to be tried together.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“When collateral crime evidence is introduced, evidence of the separate crime may not become a feature of the trial. The amount of testimony which may be introduced as to the additional crime is thus limited, many times resulting in only the second victim being able to testify. No such limitation occurs when offenses are joined for trial, where all relevant evidence as to each crime being tried would be admissible. Additionally, if collateral crime evidence is introduced, the defense is entitled to have the judge read a limiting instruction. No such instruction is available in consolidated trials.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Alford v. State
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.