937 So. 2d 277 - Murray v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(Defendant) would be justified in using non-deadly force against (victim) if the following two facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: . . . . If, in your consideration of the issue of self-defense, you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of non-deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of non-deadly force, then you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 988 So. 2d 1185 - Fields v. State · 966 So. 2d 1035 - Testerman v. State

2. “THE COURT: ... A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or the imminent commission of aggravated battery against himself or another. To prove the crime of aggravated battery, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt.... [[Image here]] [THE STATE]: Your Honor, I’m sorry to object, but I was talking to the defense. There is a burden-shifting that’s not appropriate under aggravated battery here. It shouldn’t be the State must prove because that’s something the defense must prove under this part of the instruction. The defense would have to prove aggravated battery, I think— [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That’s correct. [THE STATE]: — for self-defense. THE COURT: Do you want me to ask the jury to be taken out at this point? [THE STATE]: Well, no. I think that’s the — that’s the crime the defense is arguing he might have been trying to defend himself against, but it’s the defendant — I guess the burden is on the defendant, I believe, to prove that, not the State to prove what Matthew was doing. THE COURT: The burden is on the defendant to prove self-defense. [THE STATE]: Right. So there is a typo under that, which says the State must prove. It should be the defendant must prove or the defense must prove that. THE COURT: Okay. So I will strike through the word State, and I will write in the word defendant.”

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

3. “We emphasize that the defect involves an erroneous reasonable doubt standard. Jurors were forced to choose between two contradictory standards: (1) that defendant was required to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) that if they had reasonable doubts about his claim of self-defense they should find him not guilty. When jurors are faced with both correct and erroneous instructions as to the applicable legal rules, there is no reason to believe that they are likely to intuit which is the correct one and which is the erroneous one.... . . . . .... The conclusion is therefore inescapable that the jury may well have decided this case under an erroneous instruction as to the burden of proof.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 988 So. 2d 1185 - Fields v. State