Alvarez 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. “Outside the presence of the jury, the State sought to exclude the statement of Anaehaka Perez, a friend of the victim’s, that the victim had stated in a telephone conversation that “her [the victim’s] father was paying her off to say Hector [defendant] was molesting her.” The court ruled that statement inadmissible. That ruling was error. The statement was not hearsay, as it was not offered to prove the truth of its contents. See Kearney v. State, 689 So.2d 1310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); see also section 90.801(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1997). See generally Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 801.2 (2000 Edition). However, when defense counsel resumed questioning Perez with the jury present, Perez testified without objection as follows: Q: Can you tell the court please what you said to [K.P.], what she said to you, what was the conversation? A: We were just talking about anything and everything, and I asked her if anything was bothering her, and she just mentioned something about her dad, Hector. Q: What did she mention? A: That her father was paying her off to say Hector was molesting her. Q: Did she go into any more detail than that? A: No, because Matías came back on the line. We were just talking. Q: Did she ever tell you any other conversation in what way her father had paid her off? A: Her father gave her a beeper, a call to let Kimberly live by herself. That is what she told me. I never knew if it was true or not. In short, the testimony that the court excluded was nevertheless adm”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Alvarez v. Crosby