Skip to main content

Arthur v. State

Citations

  • 735 So. 2d 213
  • 1999 WL 161307

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding no violation despite the defendant winning three of the four Barker factors: “The final Barker factor is the resulting prejudice to Arthur. This is where Arthur loses his argument.”
  • jury permitted to infer that robbery was a “total afterthought” to murder and therefore no indictable attempt to rob began until the victim was dead; “therefore, no continuous transaction linking Arthur with the murder”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: En Banc

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.