818 So. 2d 580 - Freeman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
April 2004
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State · 749 So. 2d 501 - Gonzalez v. Singletary · Saffor v. State · 549 So. 2d 649 - Tingley v. State · 643 So. 2d 1172 - State v. Huntsman
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Freeman argues that there was not a sufficient showing of similarity between incidents to warrant the admission of collateral crime evidence here. We disagree. Although the victims in the instant case were of different sex, sex played no part in Freeman’s selection of victims. He engaged in anal sex with both victims while he was babysitting them. His niece was approximately seven-years old while his nephew was five, and the acts against both took place in each of the victims’ homes. The trial court did not err in finding the existence of similarity between the incidents.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hackett v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.