Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 944 So. 2d 56 - Lee v. State

944 So. 2d 56 - Lee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · McFee v. State · 574 So. 2d 685 - McQuarter v. State · 863 So. 2d 836 - Byrom v. State · Montana v. State

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.

  1. “While cross-examining Connie Evans, who lived across the street from Lee, defense counsel asked whether she had told Beth Lee, the defendant's wife, that she did not trust men because Evans' daughter had been molested by her ex-husband. Evans testified that she had not made such a statement to Beth and stated that she would never discuss anything like this with anyone except with her family. Later, while examining Beth Lee, the defense sought to elicit testimony that Evans had made a statement to Beth about Evans' feelings toward men in general. The State objected and the trial court ruled that this was inadmissible hearsay. Lee now asserts that this ruling constitutes reversible error. Evans' testimony was not essential to the State's case. She was not the complaining witness nor did she observe any criminal behavior on Lee's part. Evans testified only that she saw Lee walk [the female victim] from the bus stop to his garage on several occasions. This was straightforward testimony. We fail to see how Evans' attitude towards or preconceived notions about men would impact the credibility of this testimony. Whether Evans had given this information to Beth would have added little if anything to Lee's position. Thus, the excluded testimony would be harmless, at best. Because Evans' testimony was not crucial, the refusal to allow insubstantial impeachment of this witness is not reversible error. None of the information the statement may have provided contradicted Evans' testimony ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) A person is guilty of sexual battery if he or she engages in sexual penetration with: (a) Another person without his or her consent; (b) A mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless person; (c) A child at least fourteen (14) but under sixteen (16) years of age, if the person is thirty-six (36) or more months older than the child; or (d) A child under the age of fourteen (14) years of age, if the person is twenty-four (24) or more months older than the child.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “were part of the complete story of these crimes.”
    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.