753 So. 2d 9 - Zack v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 78 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959), this Court reiterated the standard rule for admission of evidence; that is, that any evidence relevant to prove a material fact at issue is admissible unless precluded by a specific rule of exclusion. See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (1995). The Court also said relevant evidence will not be excluded merely because it relates to facts that point to the commission of a separate crime, but added the caveat that "the question of the relevancy of this type of evidence should be cautiously scrutinized before it is determined to be admissible." 110 So.2d at 662 . This rule concerning the admissibility of similar fact evidence has been codified by the Legislature as section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (1995). Later, in Bryan v. State, 533 So.2d 744 (Fla.1988), we made it clear that the admissibility of other crimes evidence is not limited to crimes with similar facts. We stated that similar fact evidence may be admissible pursuant to section 90.404, and other crimes or bad acts that are not similar may be admissible under section 90.402. We reiterated the distinction between "similar fact" evidence and "dissimilar fact" evidence in Sexton v. State, 697 So.2d 833, 837 (Fla.1997). Thus, section 90.404 is a special limitation governing the admissibility of similar fact evidence. But if evidence of a defendant's collateral bad acts bears no logical resemblance to the crime for which the defendant is being tried, then section 90.404(2)(a) does not a”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Randall v. State · 23 So. 3d 87 - Victorino v. State

2. “When addressing mitigating circumstances, the sentencing court must expressly evaluate in its sentencing order each mitigating circumstance proposed by the defendant to determine whether it is supported by the evidence and whether, in the case of nonstatutory factors, it is truly of a mitigating nature. See Rogers v. State, 511 So.2d 526 (Fla. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1020 , 108 S.Ct. 733 , 98 L.Ed.2d 681 (1988). The court must find as a mitigating circumstance each proposed factor that is mitigating in nature and has been reasonably established by the greater weight of the evidence ....”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gonzalez v. State · 845 So. 2d 41 - Kormondy v. State

3. “[t]he record suggests only that [the victim’s] murder was part of Zack’s premeditated plan to kill her and take her car and possessions. While it is true that Zack did not have to murder [the victim] to accomplish his monetary goals, this alone does not make Zack’s dominant motive the desire to avoid arrest.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 36 So. 3d 597 - Cole v. State · 926 So. 2d 1203 - Buzia v. State