688 So. 2d 657 - State v. Ingram’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 750 So. 2d 1036 - State v. Hotoph (1999), State v. Parker (2007)
44 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Sullivan v. Louisiana · Hudson v. Louisiana · Cherek v. United States · 603 So. 2d 731 - State v. Hearold
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) When the victim resists the act to the utmost, but whose resistance is overcome by force. (2) When the victim is prevented from resisting the act by threats of great and immediate bodily harm, accompanied by apparent power of execution. (3) When the victim is prevented from resisting the act because the offender is armed with a dangerous weapon. (4) When the victim is under the age of twelve years. Lack of knowledge of the victim's age shall not be a defense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Upon motion of a defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered when a remark or comment, made within the hearing of the jury by the ... district attorney ... during the trial or in argument, refers directly or indirectly to: . . . (2) Another crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[E]ven if it were a reference to other crimes, the statement was harmless error because the jury’s verdict was surely unattributable to that statement. ■ The prosecutor’s ambiguous statement was apparently not repeated when his opening statement resumed. Likewise* the foundation' of the state’s case was not this obscure portion of its opening statement, but the testimony of [the. victims]. We accord credit to the good sense and fair-mindedness of the jurors who heard the evidence. There is no showing that the prosecutor’s comments made it impossible for the defendant to obtain a fair trial and trial judge was not clearly wrong in this determination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Banks
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.