Griffin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 112 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably 645 So. 2d 377 - Spencer v. State (1994), 762 So. 2d 879 - Brooks v. State (2000)
1 federal appellate · 112 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 Lockett v. Ohio · Doerr v. Doerr · 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · Rodriguez v. New York · 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams 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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[EJvidence of uncharged crimes which are inseparable from the crime charged, or evidence which is inextricably intertwined with the crime charged, is not Williams rule evidence. It is admissible under section 90.402 because “it is a relevant and inseparable part of the act which is in issue.... [I]t is necessary to admit the evidence to adequately describe the deed.””
29 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Denmark v. State · Canion v. State“The manner in which the car keys were taken was inextricably intertwined with the theft of the automobile, one of the charges before the jury. The testimony was necessary to establish the entire context out of which the crime arose.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. State · Beckman 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.