Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 629 SO2D 109 - Golden v. State

Golden v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
July 2004
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Anderson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · 559 So. 2d 187 - State v. Law · Lynn v. Alabama · 351 So. 2d 972 - McArthur v. State · 90 So. 2d 629 - Davis v. State

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

  1. “Moreover, when circumstantial evidence is used to prove the corpus delicti, “it must be established by the most convincing, satisfactory and unequivocal proof compatible with the nature of the case, excluding all uncertainty or doubt.” Lee [v. State], 96 Fla. [59] at 65, 117 So. [699] at 702 [(1928)]; Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629 (Fla.1956); Deiterle v. State, 101 Fla. 79 , 134 So. 42 (1931). By its very nature, circumstantial evidence is subject to varying interpretations. It must, therefore, be sufficient to negate all reasonable defense hypotheses as to cause of death and show beyond a reasonable doubt that the death was caused by the criminal agency of another person. See State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187 (Fla.1989); McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972 (Fla.1977).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The finger of suspicion points heavily at Golden. A reasonable juror could conclude that he more likely than not caused his wife's death. In criminal cases, however, circumstantial evidence must establish that death was caused by the criminal agency of another beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a more demanding finding than that it likely occurred. We conclude that the state's circumstantial evidence is insufficient to meet this test and to overcome Golden's hypothesis that his wife's drowning resulted from an accident. There were no eyewitnesses to the death, and Golden never confessed or made anything but exculpatory statements. There was no evidence that relations between the Goldens were anything but affectionate and cordial. There were no wounds or other signs of violence on the body. There was no proof to support the state's theory that he pushed her off the dock into the water. Thus, the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Golden's death resulted from the criminal agency of another person rather than from an accident.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.