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.
8 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1984–1987 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Yohn v. Stategreen2 sentences1985The First District Court of Appeal certified to this Court the following question: If the state has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was sane at the time of the offense when the defense of insanity has been raised, is the giving of the present insanity instruction, as set forth in standard jury instruction 3.04(b), along with the general reasonable doubt instruction sufficient, notwithstanding the defendant having specifically requested the Court to instruct the jury that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane at the time of the 1984See Yohn v. State, 450 So.2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). | 2 | 2 |
Rotenberry v. Stategreen2 sentences1985Cf. Rotenberry v. State, 468 So.2d 971, 972 (Fla. 1985) (standard jury instruction on entrapment adequate, in combination with the general reasonable doubt instruction). 1985Rotenberry v. State, 468 So.2d 971 (Fla.1985). | 1 | 2 |
Barwicks v. Stategreen1 sentence1987Accord Vasquez v. State, 54 Fla. 127 , 44 So. 739 (1907); Cobb v. State, 214 So.2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So.2d 747 (Fla. 1969); Egantoff v. State, 208 So.2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 218 So.2d 164 (Fla. 1968); see also Barwicks v. State, 82 So.2d 356 (Fla. 1955). | 1 | 1 |
Vasquez v. Stategreen1 sentence1987Accord Vasquez v. State, 54 Fla. 127 , 44 So. 739 (1907); Cobb v. State, 214 So.2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So.2d 747 (Fla. 1969); Egantoff v. State, 208 So.2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 218 So.2d 164 (Fla. 1968); see also Barwicks v. State, 82 So.2d 356 (Fla. 1955). | 1 | 1 |
Koptyra v. Stategreen1 sentence1985We hold that instruction 3.04(c) is adequate in combination with the general reasonable doubt instruction. [3] *974 Initially, we note that the final sentence of instruction 3.04(c) reflects this Court's holding in State v. Liptak, 277 So.2d 19, 22 (Fla. 1973): While the state always has the burden of proving the guilt of [the] accused beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused never has the burden of proving his innocence, nevertheless, the burden of adducing evidence on the defense of entrapment is on the accused unless the facts relied on otherwise appear in evidence to such an extent as to | 1 | 1 |
State v. Liptakgreen1 sentence1985We hold that instruction 3.04(c) is adequate in combination with the general reasonable doubt instruction. [3] *974 Initially, we note that the final sentence of instruction 3.04(c) reflects this Court's holding in State v. Liptak, 277 So.2d 19, 22 (Fla. 1973): While the state always has the burden of proving the guilt of [the] accused beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused never has the burden of proving his innocence, nevertheless, the burden of adducing evidence on the defense of entrapment is on the accused unless the facts relied on otherwise appear in evidence to such an extent as to | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Egantoff v. State
green
1 sentence1987Accord Vasquez v. State, 54 Fla. 127 , 44 So. 739 (1907); Cobb v. State, 214 So.2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So.2d 747 (Fla. 1969); Egantoff v. State, 208 So.2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 218 So.2d 164 (Fla. 1968); see also Barwicks v. State, 82 So.2d 356 (Fla. 1955). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Cobb v. State
green
1 sentence1987Accord Vasquez v. State, 54 Fla. 127 , 44 So. 739 (1907); Cobb v. State, 214 So.2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So.2d 747 (Fla. 1969); Egantoff v. State, 208 So.2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 218 So.2d 164 (Fla. 1968); see also Barwicks v. State, 82 So.2d 356 (Fla. 1955). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Dean v. State
neutral
1 sentence1987Accord Vasquez v. State, 54 Fla. 127 , 44 So. 739 (1907); Cobb v. State, 214 So.2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So.2d 747 (Fla. 1969); Egantoff v. State, 208 So.2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 218 So.2d 164 (Fla. 1968); see also Barwicks v. State, 82 So.2d 356 (Fla. 1955). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Posey v. State
green
1 sentence1987Accord Vasquez v. State, 54 Fla. 127 , 44 So. 739 (1907); Cobb v. State, 214 So.2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So.2d 747 (Fla. 1969); Egantoff v. State, 208 So.2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 218 So.2d 164 (Fla. 1968); see also Barwicks v. State, 82 So.2d 356 (Fla. 1955). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Miller v. State
neutral
1 sentence1987Hence, as was directly held in the subsequent and controlling case of Miller v. State, 225 So.2d 409 (Fla. 1969), the lack of evidence qualification was sufficiently implied by the general reasonable doubt instruction so as to render it unnecessary to give (and therefore harmless not to) an explicit charge to the same effect. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Holmes v. State
green
1 sentence1986The Yohn court pointed out Holmes v. State, 374 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1979) cert. den. 446 U.S. 913 , 100 S.Ct. 1845 , 64 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980), which stated the Florida law that, where there is testimony of insanity sufficient to present a reasonable doubt of sanity in the minds of the jurors, the presumption of sanity vanishes and the sanity of the accused must be proven by the prosecution, as any other element of the offense, beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Goodman v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
green
1 sentence1986The Yohn court pointed out Holmes v. State, 374 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1979) cert. den. 446 U.S. 913 , 100 S.Ct. 1845 , 64 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980), which stated the Florida law that, where there is testimony of insanity sufficient to present a reasonable doubt of sanity in the minds of the jurors, the presumption of sanity vanishes and the sanity of the accused must be proven by the prosecution, as any other element of the offense, beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Blum v. Holley
green
1 sentence1986The Yohn court pointed out Holmes v. State, 374 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1979) cert. den. 446 U.S. 913 , 100 S.Ct. 1845 , 64 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980), which stated the Florida law that, where there is testimony of insanity sufficient to present a reasonable doubt of sanity in the minds of the jurors, the presumption of sanity vanishes and the sanity of the accused must be proven by the prosecution, as any other element of the offense, beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Yohn v. State
green
1 sentence1986In Yohn v. State, 476 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1985), the Supreme Court answered in the negative the certified question of whether SJI 3.04(b) along with the general reasonable doubt instruction was sufficient to instruct the jury on the State's burden to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt once the defendant has rebutted the presumption of sanity. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Reese v. State
green
1 sentence1985Reese v. State, 452 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.