632 So. 2d 294 - State v. Matthews’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 2013
13 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 524 So. 2d 526 - State v. Mims · 566 So. 2d 394 - State v. Sheehan · 421 So. 2d 895 - State v. Montana · State v. Schell · State v. Davis
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Improper venue shall be raised in advance of trial by motion to quash, and shall be tried by the judge alone. Venue shall not be considered an essential element to be proven by the state at trial, rather it shall be a jurisdictional matter to be proven by the state by a preponderance of the evidence and decided by the court in advance of trial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Amato · State v. Fontenot“the requirement that defendant request the preparer of the certificate to testify is tantamount to requiring the defendant to put on the proof [. The] requirement is not an onerous burden that deprives defendant of any constitutional rights.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“When the defendant subpoenas the person who made the certificate more than five days prior to trial, the state is made aware that the certificate will not be admissible into evidence in lieu of the testimony of the person who made the certificate, and it is incumbent upon the state to procure the attendance of the person who made the certificate at trial and to offer his or her testimony to establish the results of the examination as proof of an element of the offense charged. It is the state's burden, not the defendant's, to go forward with proof of the elements of the crime and there is no reason why the defendant should ask for continuance when the subpoenaed witness fails to appear at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cunningham
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.