801 So. 2d 78 - Perry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 29 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Premeditation is defined as more than a mere intent to kill; it is a fully formed conscious purpose to kill." This purpose to kill must exist for such a time before the homicide "to permit reflection as to the nature of the act to be committed and the probable result of that act." Premeditation can be shown by circumstantial evidence. Whether the State's evidence fails to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is a question of fact for the jury. As this Court has stated: Evidence from which premeditation may be inferred includes such matters as the nature of the weapon used, the presence or absence of adequate provocation, previous difficulties between the parties, the manner in which the homicide was committed, and the nature and manner of the wounds inflicted. Green, 715 So.2d at 944. Moreover, whether premeditation exists is a question of fact for the jury, but the jury is not required "to believe the defendant's version of the facts when the State has produced conflicting evidence."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 844 So. 2d 629 - Conahan v. State · 967 So. 2d 735 - Williams v. State

2. “in those cases where the record discloses that, in committing the murder, the defendant was apparently motivated by some reason other than a desire to obtain the stolen valuable, a conviction for robbery (or the robbery aggravator) will not be upheld.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kinsler v. State · 814 So. 2d 1177 - Perkins v. State

3. “The trial court's finding denying a motion for judgment of acquittal will not be reversed on appeal if there is competent substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 844 So. 2d 629 - Conahan v. State · 854 So. 2d 758 - Garcia v. State