Gary v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla. 1996), the supreme court held that guilty knowledge is an essential element of the crime of possession and that the State is required to prove that the defendant knew of the illicit nature of the substance possessed. While Gary was charged with delivery, not possession, this distinction is not significant as this court has held that "guilty knowledge" is also an element of the crime of delivery. See Ryals v. State, 716 So.2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 727 So.2d 910 (Fla.1998), receded from on other grounds in Hampton v. State, 796 So.2d 1260 , 1260 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also Jenkins v. State, 694 So.2d 78, 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Clearly, then, Gary was entitled to the requested Chicone instruction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 832 So. 2d 773 - Jackson v. State

2. “[i]t is error to fail to give an instruction even if the defendant did not explicitly say he did not have knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Norman v. State

3. “); Scott v. State, 808 So.2d 166, 170-71 (Fla.2002) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Norman v. State