939 So. 2d 1175 - Snell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Ordinarily, proof of the corpus delicti of the crime charged is required before a confession or admission against interest may be received in evidence.” Garmon v. State, 772 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Specifically, the state has to prove: (1) that a crime of the type charged was committed; and (2) that the crime was committed through the criminal agency of another. In regard to the first part — that a crime was committed — each element of the relevant offense must be shown to exist. With respect to the second part — the criminal agency of another — the proof need not show the specific identity of the person who committed the crime. That is, it is not necessary to prove that the crime was committed by the defendant. Franqui v. State, 699 So.2d 1312, 1317 (Fla.1997) (citations omitted). The primary function of this requirement is to protect the defendant “from being convicted of a nonexistent crime due to ‘derangement, mistake or official fabrication.’ ” Baxter v. State, 586 So.2d 1196, 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1976)).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. J.B. v. State · 987 So. 2d 1250 - Syverud v. State

2. “from being convicted of a nonexistent crime due to `derangement, mistake or official fabrication.' " Baxter v. State, 586 So.2d 1196, 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1976)). * * * The state's burden in establishing the corpus delicti for an admission is far below its burden for a conviction. See [ Garmon v. State, 772 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)] ("The state is not required to prove the elements of the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt before admission of a defendant's self-incriminatory statements. That burden is only required to convict. The state must, however, present substantial evidence which tends to show that the crime charged was, in fact, committed by someone.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 987 So. 2d 1250 - Syverud v. State

3. “`a) that the defendant knowingly purchased or possessed a certain substance, b) the substance was cocaine, c) the quantity was 28 grams or more, and d) the defendant knew the substance was cocaine.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 967 So. 2d 1102 - Leigh v. State