Price v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Due process of law requires the State to allege every essential element when charging a violation of law to provide the accused with sufficient notice of the allegations against him. Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const.; M.F. v. State, 583 So.2d 1383, 1386-87 (Fla. 1991). There is a denial of due process when there is a conviction on a charge not made in the information or indictment. See [State v.] Gray, 435 So.2d [816,] 818 [ (Fla. 1983) ]; see also Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 , 57 S.Ct. 255 , 81 L.Ed. 278 (1937). For an information to sufficiently charge a crime it must follow the statute, clearly charge each of the essential elements, and sufficiently advise the accused of the specific crime with which he is charged. See Rosin v. Anderson, 155 Fla. 673 , 21 So.2d 143, 144 (Fla. 1945). Generally the test for granting relief based on a defect in the information is actual prejudice to the fairness of the trial. See Gray, 435 So.2d at 818 (citing Lackos v. State, 339 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1976)).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 214 So. 3d 578 - Calvin Weatherspoon v. State of Florida · Richards v. State

2. “[n]o indictment or information, or any count thereof, shall be dismissed or judgment arrested, or new trial granted on account of any defect in the form of the indictment or information or of misjoinder of offenses or for any cause whatsoever, unless the court shall be of the opinion that the indictment or information is so vague, indistinct, and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him or her in the preparation of a defense or expose the accused after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. ANTHONY COWART v. STATE OF FLORIDA · Richards v. State

3. “[g]enerally the test for granting relief based on a defect in the information is actual prejudice to the fairness of the trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. ANTHONY COWART v. STATE OF FLORIDA · Richards v. State