State v. Rife’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “ALTHOUGH WILLINGNESS OR CONSENT OF THE MINOR IS NOT A DEFENSE TO SEXUAL BATTERY OF A MINOR, MAY IT BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT AS A MITIGATING FACTOR IN SENTENCING?”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Delaney · 745 So. 2d 985 - State v. Hoffman

2. “First, this statute, section 794.011(8)(b), and others like it are designed to further the state's compelling interest in protecting minors from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse from adults. See generally, Jones v. State, 640 So.2d 1084 (Fla.1994)(Kogan, J. concurring); Schmitt v. State, 590 So.2d 404 (Fla.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 964 , 112 S.Ct. 1572 , 118 L.Ed.2d 216 (1992); State v. Sorakrai, 543 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Unlike the others, however, this statute is specifically directed toward defendants who are "in a position of familial or custodial authority." State v. Whiting, 711 So.2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). This is not a statute that could apply to star-crossed lovers who engage in consensual sex, and are close in age. See e.g., B.B. v. State, 659 So.2d 256 (Fla.1995). Here, the statute seeks to penalize an adult who preys upon children, and who takes advantage of his or her status to exploit children. The trial court, therefore, should not be able to use as a mitigator that which is statutorily prohibited as a defense at trial. To do so eviscerates the statute and subverts its underlying public policy. See Whiting; State v. Smith, 668 So.2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 789 So. 2d 288 - State v. Rife · 803 So. 2d 768 - Pozek v. State

3. “[t]he victim was an initiator, willing participant, aggressor, or provoker of the incident.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 789 So. 2d 288 - State v. Rife · 739 So. 2d 1223 - State v. Brooks