Lopez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In this case, there was no allegation or evidence that appellant ever had permission to be in the victim's home [at the time in question]. There was thus no evidence of appellant's `remaining in' the dwelling after a revocation of consent, which would support the alternative `remaining in' language in the instruction. The instruction, as given, suggested that the jury could convict appellant if he either entered the victim's home with the intent to commit an offense or did not form the intent until after he `remained in' her home. On these facts, however, with no consensual entry, the only way appellant could be convicted of burglary is if he had the intent to commit an offense when he entered the victim's home. Because we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that this erroneous instruction did not affect the jury's verdict, we reverse and remand for a new trial." [e.s.]”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Randolph v. State · 828 So. 2d 445 - Miller v. State

2. “Before you can find the Defendant guilty of burglary the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: One, the Defendant entered or remained in a structure owned by or in the possession of Bill Sease or Any Kind of Checks Cashed. And, two, the Defendant did not have the permission or consent o[f] Bill Sease or Any Kind of Checks Cashed, or anyone authorized to act for Bill Sease or Any Kind of Checks Cashed to enter or remain in the structure at the time. And, three, at the time of entering or remaining in the structure the Defendant had a fully-formed conscious intent to commit the offense of theft in that structure. ... Even though an unlawful entering or remaining in a structure is proved, if the evidence does not establish that it was done with the intent to commit theft the Defendant must be found not guilty.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 830 So. 2d 177 - Couzo v. State · 861 So. 2d 434 - Foster v. State

3. “language was included in an armed burglary jury instruction. However, in Floyd, there was evidence that the defendant had spent several minutes arguing with the victim in her home before shooting her. Unlike this case, it was, therefore, arguable that the defendant did not have the requisite intent until after he entered the victim's home. We therefore conclude, based on the reasoning outlined in both Johnekins and Couzo , that it was not fundamental error to include the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 828 So. 2d 445 - Miller v. State