Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 680 SO2D 1065 - Carroll v. State

Carroll v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 2018

9 state decisions

70199620002010decided

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 424 So. 2d 726 - Florida Bar v. Merwin · Anderson v. State · Haslem v. State · 559 So. 2d 354 - Dixon 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “According to Professor LaFave, "The traditional view as expressed by most commentators is that abandonment is never a defense to a charge of attempt if the defendant has gone so far as to engage in the requisite acts with criminal intent." 2 LaFave and Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 6.3(b), at 54 (footnote omitted; emphasis in original). The Model Penal Code took the position that renunciation of criminal purpose should be recognized as a defense to an attempt. Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 5.01, at 296-98, 356-62 (1985). It appears reasonably clear that the Florida legislature enacted subsection 777.04(5), Florida Statutes, in order to change the common law rule and allow renunciation to be a defense to the charge of criminal attempt. Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 5.01, at 360 n. 279. As we view the matter, the Florida Supreme Court has expressly recognized that the defense, whether termed withdrawal, abandonment, or renunciation, is available in a proper case as a defense against a substantive criminal charge. Smith v. State, 424 So.2d at 732 . The effect of subsection 777.04(5), Florida Statutes, is to expand the availability of the defense to the charge of attempt, where at common law the defense would not otherwise have been available.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “misconstrues the legislative intent in enacting section 777.04(5).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “also referred to as withdrawal or renunciation.”
    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.