Ventura v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
February 2010
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · 938 So. 2d 546 - Yisrael v. State · 718 So. 2d 761 - State v. Hoggins · 438 So. 2d 142 - Love v. State · 965 So. 2d 308 - Ward 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.
“[Harmless error analysis must not become a device whereby the appellate court substitutes itself for the jury, examines the permissible evidence, excludes the impermissible evidence, and determines that the evidence of guilt is sufficient or even overwhelming based on the permissible evidence. ... Overwhelming evidence of guilt does not negate the fact that an error that constituted a substantial part of the prosecution’s case may have played a substantial part in the jury’s deliberation and thus contributed to the actual verdict reached, for the jury may have reached its verdict because of the error without considering other reasons untainted by error that would have supported the same result. [[Image here]] The harmless error test ... places the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction. Application of the test requires not only a close examination of the permissible evidence on which the jury could have legitimately relied, but an even closer examination of the impermissible evidence which might have possibly influenced the jury verdict .... [[Image here]] ... The test must be conscientiously applied and the reasoning of the court set forth for the guidance of all concerned and for the benefit of further appellate review. The test is not a suffí-cieney-of-”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A. Along with the victims, the defendant’s [sic] wouldn’t give any statements. [[Image here]] A. Yes. The suspects were in custody and the defendant then declined to make statements.”
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.