Mathis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[N]o direct evidence whatsoever was offered on the issue of whether, on the date of the alleged sexual battery, the alleged victim was suffering from “a mental disease or defect which rendered her temporarily or permanently incapable of appraising the nature of her conduct.” On appeal, the [S]tate argues that a reasonable juror might infer, from the alleged victim’s IQ and “mental and developmental age” some fifteen months before the date of the alleged sexual battery, that the alleged victim was “mentally defective” on the date of the alleged sexual battery. We disagree. No evidence was offered as to the correlation, if any, between IQ and “mental and developmental age,” and the ability to understand “the nature” of one’s “conduct.” Children having a chronological age younger than the alleged victim’s “mental and developmental age” have been found to possess a sufficient understanding of the difference between the truth and a lie, and the moral obligation to relate the former rather than the latter, so as to be competent to testify in court. In fact, in this case, the trial court concluded, we believe correctly, that the alleged victim was competent to testify. On this issue, our standard of review is whether, viewing all of the evidence and inferences fairly to be drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the [S]tate, a reasonable jury might have found that the alleged victim was “mentally defective,” as that term is defined in section 794.011(l)(b), on the date of the a”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bowman v. State · 139 So. 3d 273 - Gilbert Dudley, III v. State of Florida

2. “Of critical importance is the fact that Ms. Bryant was not asked whether, on the date of the alleged sexual battery, the alleged victim was suffering from `a mental disease or defect which rendered her temporarily or permanently incapable of appraising the nature of her conduct.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dinkens v. State · Bowman v. State

3. “`[m]entally defective' means a mental disease or defect which renders a person temporarily or permanently incapable of appraising the nature of his or her conduct.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dinkens v. State · 784 So. 2d 591 - Schimele v. State