674 So. 2d 731 - State v. Powell’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably 775 So. 2d 376 - Peterson v. State (2001), State v. Johnson (2002)
33 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 United States v. Powell · In re Disbarment of Sacco · DiCarlantonio v. United States · Anderson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · Kokkonen v. Democratic National Committee Chairman
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“those in which an acquittal on one count negates a necessary element for conviction on another count.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage“[s]uch a finding would have brought [ Pitts ] within the ambit of our holdings in Mahaun and Redondo . " Id. Therefore, Pitts expressly explains that if the jury finds the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense of the separately charged underlying felony, Mahaun and Redondo apply and not Pitts . In this case, the jury in fact did make an affirmative finding that Brown was guilty of a lesser included offense of armed robbery, namely petit theft. Because the jury found Brown guilty of petit theft rather than simply acquitting him of armed robbery, this case falls within the ambit of our holdings in Mahaun and Redondo . To summarize, based on Mahaun and Redondo , Brown's jury verdicts are truly inconsistent because the jury's verdict finding Brown guilty of a lesser included misdemeanor of the separately charged underlying felony negated the essential felony element of first-degree felony murder. Accordingly, we quash the Third District's determination that there is no true inconsistency. A brief explanation of the rationale or policy behind the true inconsistent verdicts exception will better explain our decision. We do not permit truly inconsistent verdicts "because the possibility of a wrongful conviction in such cases outweighs the rationale for allowing verdicts to stand.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“because jury verdicts can be the result of lenity and therefore do not always speak to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.”
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.