Huntley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Whatever view is taken of the testimony in the record, there is no question that it reflects on the part of the appellants a situation ‘evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life.’ These words were never meant to be used in a strict technical sense and is well stated by this Court in Ramsey v. State, 114 Fla. 766 , 154 So. 855 , 856: Tt is obvious, therefore, that the phrase “evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life,” as used in the statute [F.S.A. § 782.04] denouncing murder in the second degree, was-not used in the legal or technical sense of the word “malice” as above defined. The phrase conveys the idea of “malice” in the popular or commonly understood sense of ill will, hatred, spite, an (sic) evil intent. It is the malice of the evil motive which the statute makes an ingredient of the crime of murder in the second degree. See Davis v. Hearst, 160 Cal. 143 , 116 P. 530 .’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Horne v. State

2. “An act is one imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life if it is an act (or a series of acts) which 1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another; 2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent, and 3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 344 So. 2d 1317 - Manuel v. State