Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1990–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mark Anthony Poole v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2017See Poole, 151 So. 3d at 415 . 2017See Poole, 151 So.3d at 415 . | 3 | 3 |
Leo Louis Kaczmar, III v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2026See Kaczmar, 228 So. 3d at 12 (holding that prosecutor's improper characterization of mitigating evidence did not rise to the level of fundamental error where comment was made only once, and the trial court read the standard jury instructions, which included an accurate statement of the law); see also Bright v. State, 299 So. 3d 985 , 1000 (Fla. 2020). 6 And Ivy’s testimony that James threatened Ivy for not offering James $20.00 for crack was not introduced solely to prove James’ “bad character or propensity” to use illicit substances; it was offered to prove James had a motive or intent to sh 2020See Kaczmar v. State, 228 So. 3d 1, 12 (Fla. 2017) (finding that prosecutor’s improper characterization of mitigating evidence did not rise to the level of fundamental error where comment was made only once, and the trial court read the standard jury instructions, which included an accurate statement of the law). | 2 | 2 |
Stephens v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Coday v. State, 946 So. 2d 988, 995 (Fla. 2006) (rejecting claim that a special jury instruction on heat of passion was necessary to correctly explain the law when the issue was not preserved for appellate review); see also Stephens v. State, 787 So. 2d 747, 755 (Fla. 2001) (“[T]he failure to give special jury instructions does not constitute error where the instructions given adequately address the applicable legal standards.”); Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285, 290 (Fla. 1993) (the failure to give an instruction unnecessary to prove an essential element of the crime charged is not fundame 2012See Coday v. State, 946 So.2d 988, 995 (Fla.2006) (rejecting claim that a special jury instruction on heat of passion was necessary to correctly explain the law when the issue was not preserved for appellate review); see also Stephens v. State, 787 So.2d 747, 755 (Fla.2001) (“[T]he failure to give special jury instructions does not constitute error where the instructions given adequately address the applicable legal standards.”); Sochor v. State, 619 So.2d 285, 290 (Fla.1993) (the failure to give an instruction unnecessary to prove an essential element of the crime charged is not fundamental e | 2 | 2 |
Coday v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Coday v. State, 946 So. 2d 988, 995 (Fla. 2006) (rejecting claim that a special jury instruction on heat of passion was necessary to correctly explain the law when the issue was not preserved for appellate review); see also Stephens v. State, 787 So. 2d 747, 755 (Fla. 2001) (“[T]he failure to give special jury instructions does not constitute error where the instructions given adequately address the applicable legal standards.”); Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285, 290 (Fla. 1993) (the failure to give an instruction unnecessary to prove an essential element of the crime charged is not fundame 2012See Coday v. State, 946 So.2d 988, 995 (Fla.2006) (rejecting claim that a special jury instruction on heat of passion was necessary to correctly explain the law when the issue was not preserved for appellate review); see also Stephens v. State, 787 So.2d 747, 755 (Fla.2001) (“[T]he failure to give special jury instructions does not constitute error where the instructions given adequately address the applicable legal standards.”); Sochor v. State, 619 So.2d 285, 290 (Fla.1993) (the failure to give an instruction unnecessary to prove an essential element of the crime charged is not fundamental e | 2 | 2 |
Sochor v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Coday v. State, 946 So. 2d 988, 995 (Fla. 2006) (rejecting claim that a special jury instruction on heat of passion was necessary to correctly explain the law when the issue was not preserved for appellate review); see also Stephens v. State, 787 So. 2d 747, 755 (Fla. 2001) (“[T]he failure to give special jury instructions does not constitute error where the instructions given adequately address the applicable legal standards.”); Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285, 290 (Fla. 1993) (the failure to give an instruction unnecessary to prove an essential element of the crime charged is not fundame 2012See Coday v. State, 946 So.2d 988, 995 (Fla.2006) (rejecting claim that a special jury instruction on heat of passion was necessary to correctly explain the law when the issue was not preserved for appellate review); see also Stephens v. State, 787 So.2d 747, 755 (Fla.2001) (“[T]he failure to give special jury instructions does not constitute error where the instructions given adequately address the applicable legal standards.”); Sochor v. State, 619 So.2d 285, 290 (Fla.1993) (the failure to give an instruction unnecessary to prove an essential element of the crime charged is not fundamental e | 2 | 2 |
Dorsett v. Stategreen1 sentence2025“Evidence is inextricably intertwined if the evidence is necessary to (1) adequately describe the deed; (2) provide an intelligent account of the crime(s) charged; (3) establish the entire context out of which the charged crime(s) arose, or (4) adequately describe the events leading up to the charged crime(s).” McGee v. State, 19 So. 3d 1074, 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (quoting Dorsett v. State, 944 So. 2d 1207, 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
McGee v. Stategreen1 sentence2025“Evidence is inextricably intertwined if the evidence is necessary to (1) adequately describe the deed; (2) provide an intelligent account of the crime(s) charged; (3) establish the entire context out of which the charged crime(s) arose, or (4) adequately describe the events leading up to the charged crime(s).” McGee v. State, 19 So. 3d 1074, 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (quoting Dorsett v. State, 944 So. 2d 1207, 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
Ayalavillamizar v. Stategreen1 sentence2025The State cites to Pujol v. State, 290 So. 3d 520 , 523–24 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), and Ayalavillamizar v. State, 134 So. 3d 492, 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), for the proposition that an isolated error, not repeated during trial or during closing arguments, and constrained by the same standard jury instruction, supports harmless error. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Montgomeryyellow1 sentence2011Initially, we note that Mr. Gland is correct that pursuant to State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252, 259 (Fla.2010), it was error for the trial court to give the instruction on manslaughter by intentional act which included the then-standard language requiring the State to prove that a defendant had an intent to kill the victim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
St. Martin's Episcopal Church v. PRUDENTIAL-BACHE SECURITIES, INC.
green
1 sentence2023In its reasoning, the court read rule 1.210(a) as “one of enlargement, rather than limitation” and stated that even though the trustee can sue, “it is all but expressly assumed in this rule that a beneficiary of a trust may sue someone other than the trustee for something.” Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences2008We concluded that although the instruction did not accurately reflect the law of insanity in Florida, fundamental error did not occur "because there is no denial of due process to place the burden of proof of insanity on the defendant." Id. 2008In Smith v. State, 521 So.2d at 107 , the trial court read an instruction with regard to insanity which this Court had previously disapproved. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Maggard v. State
green
1 sentence2002But if the instruction was read, Barnhill wanted it read without the word "substantially." In support, Barnhill relies on Maggard v. State, 399 So.2d 973 (Fla. 1981), for the proposition that if a defendant does not rely on specific mitigation, the State may not present evidence to rebut it. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Caruthers v. State
green
1 sentence1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Gallagher v. Federal Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence1990Gallagher, supra. In instructing the jury, this court read the instruction premised upon Florida Statutes Section 316.151. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.