620 So. 2d 436 - State v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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. “"Nonetheless it is within the province of this reviewing court to entertain complaint of Constitutional violations on appellate review notwithstanding that consideration of such complaint more often than not is deferred until filing of a writ of habeas corpus. This Court's usual pretermission of such issues stems from the need of an evidentiary hearing which can only be had incident to the writ of habeas corpus. The record before us, however, bears full and sufficient proof of the error which no posterior hearing could augment. For this reason, the need for delay is obviated. In the case at hand the asserted error involves the very definition of the crime of which defendant was in fact convicted. Such an error is of such importance and significance as to violate fundamental requirements of due process. Furthermore to defer consideration until defendant were to file a writ of habeas corpus would only serve to prolong the occasion when defendant might again be tried, with resultant prejudice to the state's opportunity to reassemble its witnesses and evidence. For these reasons we find it preferable now to reverse defendant's conviction and sentence and order him retried. Because reversal of defendant's conviction results not from evidentiary insufficiency but from trial court error, and upon defendant's urging in brief on this appeal, he is subject to being retried for attempted second degree murder, the crime of which convicted. Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 21”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 143 So. 3d 1275 - State v. Wallace · 626 So. 2d 476 - State v. Porter

2. “[O]ne could hardly imagine an error which more seriously affects the fairness of a judicial proceeding or which is more prejudicial to the fundamental rights of an accused than a jury instruction which incorrectly defines the crime with which the accused is charged.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 143 So. 3d 1275 - State v. Wallace · 640 So. 2d 460 - State v. Pyke

3. “approach employed earlier in Latiolais , this court decided to reverse defendant's conviction and sentence because an erroneous instruction identical to that at issue was given to the jury by the trial judge. Even though, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Holmes specifically intended to kill the victim by shooting into the victim's vehicle with a high velocity rifle, the decision did not rest on this factual determination. Instead, this Court reversed Holmes' conviction and sentence concluding he was not afforded a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 640 So. 2d 460 - State v. Pyke