Strohm v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
April 2012
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State · 934 So. 2d 1248 - McLean 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.
“The 1973 rape for which appellant was convicted in 1974 was on a twelve-year-old who testified that she did not know appellant. The capital sexual battery in this case was on appellant’s daughter and occurred between August 1990 and May 1991 when the victim was eight years old. In addition, there were substantial other dissimilarities in the crimes. In the 1973 rape the victim was vaginally penetrated while the crime in the instant case consisted of another form of sexual abuse. The 1973 rape was remote in time to the capital sexual battery charge in this case, seventeen years prior. The 1973 rape was a one-time occurrence on a stranger to the appellant. In this case the sexual battery was on appellant’s daughter over a several month period. In this case there was no evidence of “the presence or lack of intervening circumstances.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pulcini v. State“In assessing whether the probative value of evidence of previous molestations is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, the trial court should evaluate: (1) the similarity of the prior acts to the act charged regarding the location of where the acts occurred, the age and gender of the victims, and the manner in which the acts were committed; (2) the closeness in time of the prior acts to the act charged; (3) the frequency of the prior acts; and (4) the presence or lack of intervening circumstances. This list is not exclusive. The trial courts should also consider other factors unique to the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pulcini v. State
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.