959 So. 2d 187 - Offord v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 35 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.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 147 So. 3d 435 - Timothy Lee Hurst v. State of Florida · 159 So. 3d 814 - John William Campbell v. State of Florida

2. “[W]e have also explained that `[a]s a general rule, "`death is not indicated in a single-aggravator case where there is substantial mitigation.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 975 So. 2d 1081 - Green v. State

3. “HAC is a weighty aggravator that has been described by this Court as one of the most serious in the statutory sentencing scheme.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 998 So. 2d 573 - Jones v. State