798 So. 2d 1258 - King v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]t is a fundamental principle of law that jury verdicts will not be disturbed except under the most dire of circumstances. Accordingly, in our review of criminal convictions, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the conviction. If then we decide that no reasonable person could have found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will be set aside. However, if our review reveals that "reasonable and fair-minded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different conclusions, the verdict of guilty is thus placed beyond our authority to disturb."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 986 So. 2d 304 - Stewart v. State · 904 So. 2d 973 - Anderson v. State

2. “[T]he State's duty to preserve evidence is limited to evidence that is expected to play a significant role in the defense. To play a constitutionally significant role in the defense, the exculpatory nature of the evidence must have been (1) apparent before the evidence was destroyed and (2) of such a nature that the defendant could not obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 827 So. 2d 705 - Randle v. State

3. “review of the record shows that, at best, this evidence would have only aided King's defense; it was not a necessary element of it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 827 So. 2d 705 - Randle v. State