627 So. 2d 1194 - Starks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Before you can find the defendant guilty of resisting an officer without violence as a lesser included offense of resisting an officer with violence, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. One, Jerome Brandful resisted or obstructed or opposed Officer Ventrere and/or Officer Cox. Number two, at the time Officer Ventrere and/or Officer Cox were engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty. Number three, Officer Ventrere and/or Officer Cox were officers. The Court again instructs you that every FIU officer is an officer within the meaning of this law. The Court further instructs you that investigating a complaint constitutes a lawful execution of a legal duty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 858 So. 2d 367 - Brandful v. State

2. “Failing to instruct on an element of the crime over which the record reflects there was no dispute is not fundamental error and there must be an objection to preserve the issue for appeal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 980 So. 2d 1279 - Dennis v. State

3. “It is settled that the purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule is to apprise the trial judge of the putative error and to preserve the issue for intelligent review on appeal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schultz v. Schickedanz