983 So. 2d 464 - Doorbal v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 51 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A court’s ruling on a motion for continuance will only be reversed when an abuse of discretion is shown. An abuse of discretion is generally not found unless the court’s ruling on the continuance results in undue prejudice to the defendant. This general rule is true even in death penalty cases. While death penalty cases command [the] closest scrutiny, it is still the obligation of an appellate court to review with caution the exercise of experienced discretion by a trial judge in matters such as a motion for a continuance.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 107 So. 3d 242 - Snelgrove v. State · 156 So. 3d 1052 - Emilia L. Carr v. State of Florida

2. “A motion filed under this rule may be amended up to 30 days prior to the evidentiary hearing upon motion and good cause shown. The trial court may in its discretion grant a motion to amend provided that the motion sets forth the reason the claim was not raised earlier and attaches a copy of the claim sought to be added.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2 So. 3d 1 - Lugo v. State · Tanzi v. State

3. “The test for admissibility of photographic evidence is relevancy rather than necessity. Crime scene photographs are considered relevant when they establish the manner in which the murder was committed, show the position and location of the victim when he or she is found by police, or assist crime scene technicians in explaining the condition of the crime scene when police arrived. This Court has upheld the admission of autopsy photographs when they are necessary to explain a medical examiner’s testimony, the manner of death, or the location of the wounds. However, even where photographs are relevant, the trial court must still determine whether the “gruesomeness of the portrayal is so inflammatory as to create an undue prejudice in the minds of the jurfors] and [distract] them from a fair and unimpassioned consideration of the evidence.” In making this determination, the trial court should “scrutinize such evidence carefully for prejudicial effect, particularly when less graphic photos are available to illustrate the same point.” As we explained in Almeida v. State, 748 So.2d 922, 929 (Fla. 1999), the relevancy standard “by no means constitutes a carte blanche for the admission of gruesome photos.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 70 So. 3d 726 - Williams v. State