Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 974 So. 2d 616 - Whittingham v. State

974 So. 2d 616 - Whittingham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 101 Wash. 2d 566 - State v. Petrich · State v. Knickerbocker · 651 So. 2d 1213 - State v. Dell'Orfano · 947 So. 2d 672 - Perley v. State · 691 So. 2d 609 - State v. Generazio

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

  1. “[T]he prosecutor in this case charged the defendant with a different type of sexual abuse in each separate count. Some counts charged that the act occurred within a specific time frame. Others charged the specific type of sexual abuse “on one or more occasions” within a specified time range. This is the same method of charging that we approved in [State v. Generazio, 691 So.2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997),] when a victim cannot be more specific regarding dates or events. The appellant never moved to dismiss the information or requested a bill of particulars to narrow the time gap or challenged the method of charging in any respect. Child sexual abuse cases pose unique problems for prosecution, as our supreme court has recognized. See Dell’Orfano v. State, 616 So.2d 38, 35 (Fla. 1993). Because the state may charge a defendant in child sexual abuse cases in a manner not permitted in other types of criminal cases, expanding time periods for the commission of offenses and grouping types of offenses together, we hold that it is not fundamental error to submit such a charge to the jury. A defendant must object at trial to ... preserve the objection. Otherwise, the prosecution may assume that by failing to challenge the charging pattern, the defendant has acquiesced in the state’s determination to charge all of the same type of acts within a single count. Indeed, by doing so the prosecution actually lessens the potential penalty to the defendant. Where each charge is discrete and charged”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “On some counts, the victim’s testimony showed multiple, indistinct acts within a certain time range. On one count of abuse by way of vaginal intercourse, the victim was able to remember several distinct acts of intercourse at different places and different times. The defense did not object to the charging of these incidents in one count or to the submission to the jury of this one count.”
    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.