769 So. 2d 496 - Schaffer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Where the implication from in-court testimony is that a non-testifying witness has made an out-of-court statement offered to prove the defendant's guilt, the testimony is not admissible.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 914 So. 2d 514 - Stokes v. State · 842 So. 2d 1041 - Hurst v. State

2. “[T]his Court clearly instructed in [ State v. ] Baird, [ 572 So.2d 904 (Fla.1990),] reaffirmed in Conley [ v. State, 620 So.2d 180 (Fla.1993)], and confirmed in Wilding [ v. State, 674 So.2d 114 (Fla.1996),] that an alleged sequence of events leading to an investigation and an arrest is not a material issue in this type of case. Therefore, there is no relevancy for such testimony to prove or establish such a nonissue. When the only possible relevance of an out-of-court statement is directed to the truth of the matters stated by a declarant, the subject matter is classic hearsay even though the proponent of such evidence seeks to clothe such hearsay under a nonhearsay label.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 914 So. 2d 514 - Stokes v. State · 778 So. 2d 452 - Stribbling v. State

3. “[E]ven if the actual statement made by the non-testifying witness is not repeated, references to the statement are inadmissible if the `inescapable inference . . . is that a non-testifying witness has furnished the police with evidence of the defendant's guilt.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 905 So. 2d 989 - Florence v. State · 976 So. 2d 1184 - Clarke v. State