Skip to main content

State v. Connelly

Citations

  • 748 So. 2d 248
  • 1999 WL 628784

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that verdicts were not truly inconsistent where inconsistency could have been the result of jury lenity, “and, therefore, verdicts do not always speak to the guilt or innocence of a defendant”
  • recognizing factual inconsistency, but finding no legal inconsistency, between conviction for introducing contraband into a jail and acquittal of possession of cannabis, where the cannabis was the only possible contraband
  • “We have not extended the truly inconsistent verdict exception to verdicts that are factually inconsistent.”
  • “We have not extended the truly inconsistent verdict exception to verdicts that are factually inconsistent.”
  • “Moreover, we have held that a double jeopardy violation does occur in such a situation if the prosecution is for the same conduct under both statutes”
  • “Moreover, we have held that a double jeopardy violation does occur in such a situation if the prosecution is for the same conduct under both statutes.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wells

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.