Supreme Court of Florida· 9/20/1990
Lucas v. State
Citations
- 568 So. 2d 18
- 1990 WL 141432
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- \A proffer is necessary to preserve a claim such as this because an appellate court will not otherwise speculate about the admissibility of such evidence.\
- prosecutor's jury argument that mitigation of no significant prior history of criminal conduct should be rejected because of *Page 1258 contemporaneous criminal conduct in violation of Scull was not fundamental error
- proffer necessary to preserve claim because appellate court will not otherwise speculate about admissibility of evidence
- victim's drug use was not relevant in penalty phase of capital trial
- proffer necessary to preserve claim that trial court improperly excluded testimony
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Per Curiam
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
66 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. BoltonArizona Supreme Court· 1995-06-13· cited 326×
- Goodwin v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1999-12-16· cited 292×
- Trease v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 2000-08-17· cited 127×
- Finney v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1995-07-20· cited 122×
- Lucas v. Secretary, Department of CorrectionsEleventh Circuit· 2012-06-08· cited 116×
- Kilgore v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1996-08-29· cited 114×
- Merck v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 2007-12-06· cited 106×
- Morrison v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 2002-03-21· cited 104×
- Harvey v. DuggerSupreme Court of Florida· 1995-02-23· cited 104×
- Donaldson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1998-04-30· cited 88×
- Frances v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 2007-10-11· cited 87×
- Consalvo v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1997-10-16· cited 84×
- Leon Davis, Jr. v. State of FloridaSupreme Court of Florida· 2016-11-10· cited 82×
- Foster v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1992-10-22· cited 73×
- Nelson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1999-05-27· cited 71×
- Blackwood v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 2000-12-21· cited 70×
- Dennis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 2002-01-31· cited 63×
- Bonifay v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1996-07-11· cited 62×
- Norton v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1997-12-24· cited 62×
- Price v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1994-11-30· cited 61×
Cites
37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court· 1986-04-30· cited 16,401×
- Lockett v. OhioSupreme Court· 1978-07-03· cited 5,026×
- Booth v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1987-09-21· cited 1,501×
- United States Ex Rel. Accardi v. ShaughnessySupreme Court· 1954-03-15· cited 1,415×
- David W. McKay v. TexasSupreme Court· 1986-10-06· cited 757×
- Johnson v. FloridaSupreme Court· 1981-10-05· cited 332×
- Rogers v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1987-07-09· cited 212×
- Elledge v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1977-04-07· cited 200×
- McKenna v. NevadaSupreme Court· 1986-01-21· cited 153×
- Craig v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1987-05-28· cited 145×
- Ruffin v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1981-03-26· cited 105×
- Lucas v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1979-06-14· cited 104×
- Goodman v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.Supreme Court· 1980-04-21· cited 100×
- Kelley v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1986-04-10· cited 98×
- Brown Et Al. v. Wainwright, Corrections SecretarySupreme Court· 1981-11-02· cited 94×
- Rhodes v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1989-07-06· cited 83×
- Illinois v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 1985-01-14· cited 77×
- Stano v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1985-07-11· cited 65×
- Scull v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1988-09-08· cited 65×
- Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1985-06-27· cited 60×
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.