876 So. 2d 13 - Curtis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Davis v. Alaska · Chambers v. Mississippi · Jones v. State · 753 So. 2d 29 - Rodriguez v. State · United States v. MacDonald
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“general principle that state evidence rules must, in some instances, yield to greater principles established by the Constitution has been applied specifically to require the admission of a confession by a third party.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“would be more concerned if Butler had been bragging to his friends”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Florida allows litigants to impeach their own witnesses, but that does not necessarily resolve the constitutional problem identified in Chambers . Although a witness may be impeached in Florida by “[a]ny party, including the party calling the witness,” pursuant to section 90.608, Florida Statutes, it is still improper under Florida law for a party to call a witness merely as a device to place the impeaching testimony before the jury. See Morton v. State, 689 So.2d 259 (Fla.1997), receded from on other grounds by Rodriguez v. State, 753 So.2d 29 (Fla.2000). In the present case, Butler testified in his deposition that he did not shoot Mrs. Stephens and that his earlier confession was false. As it turned out then, Curtis was no better off than Chambers. He was precluded, albeit for a slightly different reason, from calling the declarant to the witness stand and confronting him with the confession. Nor is the due process problem identified in Chambers resolved merely because Florida recognizes an exception to the hearsay rule for declarations against penal interest. If a confession by a third party is critical evidence that should have been admitted in evidence to protect the constitutional rights of the accused, the particular reason for excluding it under state law will make little difference. If the confession was excluded on the ground that it did not meet the requirements of the declaration against penal -interest exception, the effect would be the same as if there were no e”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.