709 So. 2d 415 - Warren v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably 860 So. 2d 704 - Howell v. State (2003), 729 So. 2d 203 - Burns v. State (1998)
28 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 Blockburger v. United States · Tibbs v. Florida · United States v. Dixon · Grady v. Corbin · Heidel 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Contrary to the State's position, we conclude that it was reversible error to reject Warren's request for a lesser included instruction on trespassing. Our law is that the burden of proof is upon the State to prove each element of the crime. ... If it fails in so doing, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal on the offense charged even if the elements proven constitute guilt of a lesser offense. ... A jury is entitled to believe or disbelieve witnesses in whole or in part.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Brazzle v. State · Nix v. State“Brazzle contends, however, that because a jury is entitled to believe or disbelieve witnesses in whole or in part, the jury could infer from the attendant circumstances in this case that there is sufficient evidence to support at least one of the proposed lesser-offense instructions. Specifically, Brazzle contends that, while Wright's identification of Brazzle as the culprit supports an inference Brazzle actually carjacked and kidnapped Wright, the jury also was free to believe that she was mistaken about her identification and find that Brazzle had acquired the vehicle from Turner after the fact, as he claimed. This argument fails.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brazzle v. State“any person who enters upon real property whether the original entry is legal or not, and thereafter pries or peeps through a window ... for the lewd, licentious and indecent purpose of spying upon the occupants thereof”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.