40 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bolin v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See also Bolin v. State, 8 So.3d 428, 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“Fundamental error occurs when a jury instruction contains an incorrect definition of a disputed element of a crime.”); Allen v. State, 939 So.2d 273, 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Florida courts have found fundamental error where the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on an element of a crime or a defense that was in dispute.”). 2014See also Bolin v. State, 8 So.3d 428, 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“Fundamental error occurs when a jury instruction contains an incorrect definition of a disputed element of a crime.”); Allen v. State, 939 So.2d 273, 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Florida courts have found fundamental error where the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on an element of a crime or a defense that was in dispute.”). | 2 | 2 |
Allen v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See also Bolin v. State, 8 So.3d 428, 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“Fundamental error occurs when a jury instruction contains an incorrect definition of a disputed element of a crime.”); Allen v. State, 939 So.2d 273, 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Florida courts have found fundamental error where the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on an element of a crime or a defense that was in dispute.”). 2014See also Bolin v. State, 8 So.3d 428, 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“Fundamental error occurs when a jury instruction contains an incorrect definition of a disputed element of a crime.”); Allen v. State, 939 So.2d 273, 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Florida courts have found fundamental error where the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on an element of a crime or a defense that was in dispute.”). | 2 | 2 |
Collins v. Youngbloodgreen2 sentences1998See Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42 , 110 S.Ct. 2715 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990). 1998See Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42 , 110 S.Ct. 2715 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990). | 2 | 2 |
Wells v. Wainwrightgreen2 sentences1978See also Wells v. Wainwright, 260 So.2d 196 (Fla. 1972); Younghans v. State, 90 So.2d 308 (Fla. 1956); Hedden v. State, 275 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1031 , 95 S.Ct. 513 , 42 L.Ed.2d 306 (1974). [18] 441 F. Supp. at 59 . [19] Id. at 59-60 . [20] Id. at 59 . [21] § 903.131, Fla. Stat., enacted by Ch. 69-307, Laws of Fla., and codified as § 903.132, Fla. Stat. (1969), provided: "No person may be admitted to bail upon appeal from a conviction of a felony if such person has previously been convicted of a felony, the commission of which occurred prior to the commission of 1973I, § 14, supra, in the case of Wells v. Wainwright, Fla. 1972, 260 So.2d 196 (p. 197) decided: "The constitutional right to bail as provided for in Section 14, Article I, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution of 1968, F.S.A., applies only prior to adjudication of guilt. | 1 | 2 |
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committeegreen1 sentence2024See Brnovich v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 594 U.S. 647, 672 (2021). | 1 | 1 |
MF v. Stategreen1 sentence2015I, § 9, Fla. Const.; M.F. v. State, 583 So.2d 1383, 138687 (Fla.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Bagley v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Reed, 837 So. 2d at 369-70 (holding that the jury was incorrectly instructed on element of malice in aggravated child abuse); Davis v. State, 804 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (finding instruction on defense of entrapment inaccurate and misleading); Moore, 903 So. 2d at 342-43 (concluding that the jury was incorrectly instructed as to whether pellet gun was "other deadly weapon" under statute prohibiting possession of a concealed weapon by convicted felon); Viveros v. State, 699 So. 2d 822, 824-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding circular instruction failed to properly instruct jury on the sp | 1 | 1 |
Reed v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Reed, 837 So. 2d at 369-70 (holding that the jury was incorrectly instructed on element of malice in aggravated child abuse); Davis v. State, 804 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (finding instruction on defense of entrapment inaccurate and misleading); Moore, 903 So. 2d at 342-43 (concluding that the jury was incorrectly instructed as to whether pellet gun was "other deadly weapon" under statute prohibiting possession of a concealed weapon by convicted felon); Viveros v. State, 699 So. 2d 822, 824-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding circular instruction failed to properly instruct jury on the sp | 1 | 1 |
Viveros v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Reed, 837 So. 2d at 369-70 (holding that the jury was incorrectly instructed on element of malice in aggravated child abuse); Davis v. State, 804 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (finding instruction on defense of entrapment inaccurate and misleading); Moore, 903 So. 2d at 342-43 (concluding that the jury was incorrectly instructed as to whether pellet gun was "other deadly weapon" under statute prohibiting possession of a concealed weapon by convicted felon); Viveros v. State, 699 So. 2d 822, 824-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding circular instruction failed to properly instruct jury on the sp | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Reed, 837 So. 2d at 369-70 (holding that the jury was incorrectly instructed on element of malice in aggravated child abuse); Davis v. State, 804 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (finding instruction on defense of entrapment inaccurate and misleading); Moore, 903 So. 2d at 342-43 (concluding that the jury was incorrectly instructed as to whether pellet gun was "other deadly weapon" under statute prohibiting possession of a concealed weapon by convicted felon); Viveros v. State, 699 So. 2d 822, 824-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding circular instruction failed to properly instruct jury on the sp | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2005See State v. Smith, 573 So.2d 306, 313 (Fla.1990) ("[E]vidence of a prior inconsistent statement offered as impeachment is admissible only for that purpose unless it is independently admissible on other grounds. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2004Under cireumstancés involving a post-sentencing recantation of a sole or chief prosecuting witness, we find a trial court is required to set aside a conviction based upon newly discovered evidence that would “probably produce an acquittal on retrial.” See Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911, 915 (Fla.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Stategreen1 sentence2004He cites to Young v. State, 827 So.2d 1075, 1077-78 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), which held that the crime of battery was subsumed within the crime of violation of an injunction for repeat domestic violence pursuant to section 784.047, and convicting the defendant of both offenses was a violation of the double jeopardy clause. | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See McPhee; see also Anderson v. State, 780 So.2d 1012, 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(stating that "only where the erroneous instruction pertains to a disputed element of the crime will the error be deemed fundamental"). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Johnson v. State, 632 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)(citing Jones ); Williams v. State, 400 So.2d 542, 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Johnson v. State, 632 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)(citing Jones ); Williams v. State, 400 So.2d 542, 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). | 1 | 1 |
Blevins v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See 756 So.2d at 1055 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. ACgreen1 sentence2000There, the court explained that, "[i]n evaluating whether a law violates the ex post facto clause, a two-prong test must be applied: (1) whether the law is retrospective in its effect; and (2) whether the law alters the definition of criminal conduct or increases the penalty by which a crime is punishable." Id. at 112 ; see also State v. A.C., 714 So.2d 617, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that "[a] law violates the ex post facto clause of the constitution only if it punishes as a crime an act which was not a crime when committed, makes the punishment for a crime more onerous than it was at c | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Woodlandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pettisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lopez v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sherburne v. School Bd. of Suwannee Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Stoutgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bragg v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Provence v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Arthur
green
1 sentence2026I, sec. 14, Fla. Const. (“Unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great, every person charged with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance shall be entitled to pretrial release on reasonable conditions.”). case, “[t]he State presented a bevy of evidence” which was “legally sufficient to sustain a jury verdict of guilty, ” id. (quoting Arthur, 390 So. 2d at 720 ), and there was no analysis undertaken of the evidence in a “light most favorable to the State.” Further, it is worth noti | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Muhammad v. State
green
2 sentences2014Muhammad, 603 So.2d at 489-90 . 2014Muhammad, 603 So. 2d at 489-90 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2014However, we reversed summary denial of the claim that the State failed to disclose exculpatory statements concerning Muhammad’s mental state at the time of the crime in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. 2014However, we reversed summary denial of the claim that the State failed to disclose exculpatory statements concerning Muhammad‟s mental state at the time of the crime in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Haygood v. State
green
1 sentence2014The erroneous jury instructions in the present case constituted fundamental error because the instructions “prevented the jury from being able to choose the true verdict in this case — a verdict based on the jury’s application of its fair assessment of the facts concerning [Mr. Williams’] intent to the proper elements of the offense as set forth in the ... statute.” Haygood, 109 So.3d at 743 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Harris v. United States
red
2 sentences2007The Elements of an Offense Under Apprendi and Its Progeny Considerable attention has been given to "the distinction the law has drawn between *333 the elements of a crime and factors that influence a criminal sentence." Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 549 , 122 S.Ct. 2406 , 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002). 2007The Elements of an Offense Under Apprendi and Its Progeny Considerable attention has been given to "the distinction the law has drawn between *333 the elements of a crime and factors that influence a criminal sentence." Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 549 , 122 S.Ct. 2406 , 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2006The majority acknowledges that the testimony of a police officer and the former prosecutor about the statements made and the deposition of the eyewitness to the prior crime were error under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). 2006The majority acknowledges that the testimony of a police officer and the former prosecutor about the statements made and the deposition of the eyewitness to the prior crime were error under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Davis v. State
green
1 sentence2006See Reed, 837 So. 2d at 369-70 (holding that the jury was incorrectly instructed on element of malice in aggravated child abuse); Davis v. State, 804 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (finding instruction on defense of entrapment inaccurate and misleading); Moore, 903 So. 2d at 342-43 (concluding that the jury was incorrectly instructed as to whether pellet gun was "other deadly weapon" under statute prohibiting possession of a concealed weapon by convicted felon); Viveros v. State, 699 So. 2d 822, 824-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding circular instruction failed to properly instruct jury on the sp | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Carter v. State
green
1 sentence2006See Reed, 837 So. 2d at 369-70 (holding that the jury was incorrectly instructed on element of malice in aggravated child abuse); Davis v. State, 804 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (finding instruction on defense of entrapment inaccurate and misleading); Moore, 903 So. 2d at 342-43 (concluding that the jury was incorrectly instructed as to whether pellet gun was "other deadly weapon" under statute prohibiting possession of a concealed weapon by convicted felon); Viveros v. State, 699 So. 2d 822, 824-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding circular instruction failed to properly instruct jury on the sp | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Nixon v. Singletary
green
2 sentences2005In Nixon, 758 So.2d 618 , the Florida Supreme Court held that a presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel arises when a defendant's trial counsel concedes the defendant's guilt to a crime and that the presumption could be overcome only by evidence that the defendant consented to the strategy. 2005Nixon, 758 So.2d at 624 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Austin v. State
green
1 sentence2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Gwong v. Singletary
green
1 sentence2000There, the court explained that, "[i]n evaluating whether a law violates the ex post facto clause, a two-prong test must be applied: (1) whether the law is retrospective in its effect; and (2) whether the law alters the definition of criminal conduct or increases the penalty by which a crime is punishable." Id. at 112 ; see also State v. A.C., 714 So.2d 617, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that "[a] law violates the ex post facto clause of the constitution only if it punishes as a crime an act which was not a crime when committed, makes the punishment for a crime more onerous than it was at c | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Delahoz v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Melvin v. State
green
1 sentence1999The elements of the crime provided in the instruction track the precise statutory language and, as the First District noted, the instruction "mentions neither negligence nor deviation from a standard of care," Hubbard, 748 So.2d at 291 , although the marginal note to the instruction cites Magaw as authority for the causation element: "As a result, (defendant) caused or contributed to the cause of the death of (victim)." Melvin In Melvin , the defendant's van turned in front of the victim's oncoming vehicle, causing a collision. 677 So.2d at 1317 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Cassamassima v. State green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Perry green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Lozano green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Carwise v. State neutral | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Gray green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Doe, John and Jane Doe v. Kirchner, Otakar Baby Richard, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, Edward J. O'COnnell v. Kirchner, Otakar green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Harris v. United States green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Carmichael v. United States green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| O'Connell v. Kirchner green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| New York v. Reyes green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Coggeshall v. McKenney green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Boyette v. State, Professional Practices Council green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Baker v. SCHOOL BOARD OF MARION CTY. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| The Florida Bar v. Lancaster green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Meeker green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Kinney v. Department of State green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Ayala v. Dept. of Professional Regulation green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Clark v. SCHOOL BD. OF LAKE CTY., FLA. neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Gustafson green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Gustafson v. Florida green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| United States v. Robinson green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Brumbley v. State green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Burton green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Veres v. County of Monroe green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Allen v. United States green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Johnson v. State neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Younghans v. State green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.