748 So. 2d 950 - Conner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 19 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(Emphasis added, italics in original). In addition to those factors listed in the section 90.803(23)(a)1., the supreme court in Townsend established a nonexclusive list for the trial court to consider in evaluating the reliability of a child's out of court statement under the statute: a consideration of the statement's spontaneity; whether the statement was made at the first available opportunity following the alleged incident; whether the statement was elicited in response to questions from adults; the mental state of the child when the abuse was reported; whether the statement consisted of a child-like description of the act; whether the child used terminology unexpected of a child of similar age; the motive or lack thereof to fabricate the statement; the ability of the child to distinguish between reality and fantasy; the vagueness of the accusations; the possibility of any improper influence on the child by participants involved in a domestic dispute; and contradictions in the accusation. Townsend, 635 So.2d at 957-58 . The trial court concluded that the victim's taped statement was reliable, observing that the eleven-year-old was able to "clearly articulate the incident which involved sexual abuse against her,”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 829 So. 2d 932 - Mikler v. State · 842 So. 2d 291 - State v. Brocca

2. “[t]he elderly person or disabled adult either: a. Testifies; or b. Is unavailable as a witness See Ch. 95-158, § 1, Laws of Fla. (emphasis added). However,”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sprouse v. State · 842 So. 2d 291 - State v. Brocca

3. “Because the hearsay exception for elderly adults neither ensures the reliability of the hearsay statements admitted at trial, nor in its broadly worded form is supported by the competing policy interests present in the child abuse context, we conclude that section 90.803(24) is facially violative of the defendant's constitutional right to confrontation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 870 So. 2d 152 - In Re Commitment of Cartwright · 835 So. 2d 1202 - State v. Hosty