Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 645 So. 2d 965 - Young v. State

645 So. 2d 965 - Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
5
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably State v. Koontz (2002), State v. Burr (2008)

28 state decisions

100199420002010decided

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 549 So. 2d 1005 - Ranger Ins. Co. v. Bal Harbour Club · State v. Jennings · Chambers v. State · State v. Kraushaar · 133 So. 2d 124 - Schoeppl v. Okolowitz

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

  1. “allowing a jury to have access to videotaped witness statements during deliberations has much the same prejudicial effect as submitting depositions to the jury during deliberations. By permitting the jurors to see the interview once again in the jury room, there is a real danger that the child's statements will be unfairly given more emphasis than other testimony. Furthermore, unlike testimony in open court or even deposition testimony, the interviews are conducted on an ex parte basis without the right of cross-examination. Thus, we hold that videotaped out-of-court interviews with child victims introduced into evidence under section 90.803(23) shall not be allowed into the jury room during deliberations. When faced with a similar issue, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reached the same conclusion. Chambers v. State, 726 P.2d 1269 (Wyo.1986). Contra State v. Kraushaar, 470 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.1991); State v. Jennings, 815 S.W.2d 434 (Mo.Ct.App.1991). Our ruling would not prevent the trial judge from allowing the jury to view the videotape a second time in open court upon request pursuant to rule 3.410.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) ... The court may permit the jury, upon retiring for deliberation, to take to the jury room: (1) a copy of the charges against the defendant; (2) forms of verdict approved by the court, after being first submitted to counsel; (3) all things received in evidence other than depositions. If the thing received in evidence is a public record or a private document which, in the opinion of the court, ought not to be taken from the person having it in custody, a copy shall be taken or sent instead of the original.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Presumably, the same rule would be applicable to videotaped confessions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.