819 So. 2d 689 - Hurst v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[W]e make a comprehensive analysis in order to determine whether the crime falls within the category of both the most aggravated and the least mitigated of murders, thereby assuring uniformity in the application of the sentence.” We consider the totality of the circumstances of the case and compare the case to other capital cases. This entails “a qualitative review by this Court of the underlying basis for each aggravator and mitigator rather than a quantitative analysis.” In other words, proportionality review “is not a comparison between the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 119 So. 3d 1214 - Kocaker v. State · 126 So. 3d 211 - Brown v. State

2. “where the defendant is not a minor, i.e., under eighteen, `no per se rule exists which pinpoints a particular age as an automatic circumstance in mitigation. Instead, the trial judge is to evaluate the defendant's age based on the evidence adduced at trial and at the sentencing hearing. '”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 956 So. 2d 470 - State v. Ballard

3. “[I]t is the patent lack of maturity and responsible judgment that underlies the mitigation of young age.... This is especially true when there is extensive evidence of parental neglect and abuse that played a significant role in the child's lack of maturity and responsible judgment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 841 So. 2d 329 - Bell v. State