Hargrove v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[B]efore a trial court may enhance a defendant's sentence or apply the mandatory minimum sentence for use of a firearm, the jury must make a finding that the defendant committed the crime; while using a firearm either by finding him guilty of a crime which involves a firearm or by answering a specific question of a special verdict form so indicating." [ Overfelt v. State], 434 So.2d [945] at 948 [(Fla. 4th DCA 1983)]. The question of whether an accused actually possessed a firearm while committing a felony is a factual matter properly decided by the jury.... To allow a judge to find that an accused actually possessed a firearm when committing a felony in order to apply the enhancement or mandatory sentencing provisions ... would be an invasion of the jury's historical function and could lead to a miscarriage of justice in cases such as this where the defendant was charged with but not convicted of a crime involving a firearm.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tucker v. State · 694 So. 2d 729 - State v. Hargrove

2. “Frankly, we are unable to understand the necessity in these circumstances to have a jury finding on the use of a firearm. If he did the deed at all—and he admitted that he did—then he did it with a firearm. There is no reason for the express finding by the jury in this circumstance, as there was in Overfelt , to resolve any contested issue of whether a firearm was the instrument of the crime or whether it was defendant who used it.”

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

3. “WHEN A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH COMMITTING A CRIME WITH THE USE OF A FIREARM DOES NOT CONTEST ITS USE AND INSTEAD DEFENDS ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS INSANE WHEN HE USED THE FIREARM, AND THE RECORD IS CLEAR BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT DEFENDANT DID ACTUALLY USE THE FIREARM, MAY THE SENTENCING JUDGE IMPOSE THE MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE FOR USE OF A FIREARM WITHOUT A SPECIFIC FINDING OF THAT FACT BY THE JURY?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 694 So. 2d 729 - State v. Hargrove