992 So. 2d 96 - Hudson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

64 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A determination of whether CCP is present is properly based on a consideration of the totality of the circumstances. See Hudson v. State, 992 So.2d 96, 116 (Fla.2008); Lynch [v. State, 841 So.2d 362, 372 (Fla.2003) ]. The scope of review is limited “to ensuring that the trial court applied the correct rule of law, and if so, that there is competent, substantial evidence to support its findings” as to an aggravating factor. Caballero v. State, 851 So.2d 655, 661 (Fla.2003) (citing Willacy v. State, 696 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla.1997)). For CCP to be found, the killing must be “the product of cool and calm reflection and not an act prompted by emotional frenzy, panic, or a fit of rage (cold); that the defendant had a careful plan or prearranged design to commit murder before the fatal incident (calculated); that the defendant exhibited heightened premeditation (premeditated); and that the defendant had no pretense of moral or legal justification.” Franklin v. State, 965 So.2d 79, 98 (Fla.2007).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 132 So. 3d 678 - Gosciminski v. State · 117 So. 3d 742 - Hilton v. State

2. “[T]o qualify as an excited utterance, the statement must be made: (1) “regarding an event startling enough to cause ner vous excitement”; (2) “before there was time to contrive or misrepresent”; and (3) “while the person was under the stress or excitement caused by the event.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Roop v. State · 3 So. 3d 1204 - Hojan v. State

3. “`[a]s an evidentiary principle, the concept of `opening the door' allows the admission of otherwise inadmissible testimony to `qualify, explain, or limit' testimony or evidence previously admitted. The concept of `opening the door' is `based on considerations of fairness and the truth-seeking function of a trial.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pelham v. Walker · 31 So. 3d 926 - Brunson v. State