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.
5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Douglas v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Douglas v. State, 652 So. 2d 887, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“the marital squabbles which occurred on the day of the killing in the present case do not constitute the reasonable provocation required for the crime of passion defense”); Daley v. State, 957 So. 2d 17, 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (testimony from eyewitness that she heard some arguing and then heard and saw shots being fired, without more, did not support a jury instruction on heat of passion). 2001See State v. Bryan, 287 So.2d 73, 76 (Fla.1973) (finding the “intentional and forceful striking of another person in anger with a loaded pistol ... which results in the discharge of that weapon, killing the victim, seems rather plainly to fall within the second degree murder conviction as ‘perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life’ ”); Douglas v. State, 652 So.2d 887, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (stating that “marital squabbles which occurred on the day of the killing in the present case do not constitute the reasonable provocation | 2 | 3 |
Daley v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See, e.g., Douglas v. State, 652 So. 2d 887, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“the marital squabbles which occurred on the day of the killing in the present case do not constitute the reasonable provocation required for the crime of passion defense”); Daley v. State, 957 So. 2d 17, 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (testimony from eyewitness that she heard some arguing and then heard and saw shots being fired, without more, did not support a jury instruction on heat of passion). | 1 | 1 |
Paz v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Id. at 561; see also Paz v. State, 777 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bryangreen1 sentence2001See State v. Bryan, 287 So.2d 73, 76 (Fla.1973) (finding the “intentional and forceful striking of another person in anger with a loaded pistol ... which results in the discharge of that weapon, killing the victim, seems rather plainly to fall within the second degree murder conviction as ‘perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life’ ”); Douglas v. State, 652 So.2d 887, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (stating that “marital squabbles which occurred on the day of the killing in the present case do not constitute the reasonable provocation | 1 | 1 |
Hines v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See State v. Bryan, 287 So.2d 73, 76 (Fla.1973) (finding the “intentional and forceful striking of another person in anger with a loaded pistol ... which results in the discharge of that weapon, killing the victim, seems rather plainly to fall within the second degree murder conviction as ‘perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life’ ”); Douglas v. State, 652 So.2d 887, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (stating that “marital squabbles which occurred on the day of the killing in the present case do not constitute the reasonable provocation | 1 | 1 |
Disney v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Instead, the evidence shows a killing in the heat of passion that occurred when defendant acted in a condition of mind where "depravity which characterizes murder in the second degree [is] absent." Disney v. State, 72 Fla. 492 , 73 So. 598, 601 (1916). 2000Instead, the evidence shows a killing in the heat of passion that occurred when defendant acted in a condition of mind where "depravity which characterizes murder in the second degree [is] absent." Disney v. State, 72 Fla. 492 , 73 So. 598, 601 (1916). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fallsgreen1 sentence1995See, e.g., People v. Falls, 235 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whidden v. State
green
2 sentences2002One of our supreme court's earliest explanations of the substance and purpose of this partial crime of passion defense is found in Whidden v. State, 64 Fla. 165 , 59 So. 561 (1912): A sudden transport of passion, caused by adequate provocation, if it suspends the exercise of judgment, and dominates volition, so as to exclude premeditation and a previously formed design, may not excuse or justify a homicide, but it may be sufficient to reduce a homicide below murder in the first degree, although the passion does not entirely dethrone the actor's reason. 1995One of our supreme court's earliest explanations of the substance and purpose of the crime of passion defense is found in Whidden v. State, 64 Fla. 165 , 59 So. 561 (1912): In a prosecution for murder in the first degree for the unlawful killing of a human being from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed, or any human being, the defendant under a plea of not guilty may introduce any relevant and proper evidence tending to show a lack of premeditated design in the admitted killing so as to reduce the offense charged to a lower degree of homicide. * * * * * * A sudden tr | 2 | 1995–2002 |
Billeaud v. State
green
1 sentence1995To support his argument that it was not merely the events of the day which were admissible, but rather the entire history of this volatile relationship, appellant relies on Auchmuty v. State, 594 So.2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) and Billeaud v. State, 578 So.2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Auchmuty v. State
green
1 sentence1995To support his argument that it was not merely the events of the day which were admissible, but rather the entire history of this volatile relationship, appellant relies on Auchmuty v. State, 594 So.2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) and Billeaud v. State, 578 So.2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). | 1 | 1995–1995 |