Case Citator › Nelson v. State

Nelson v. State

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Citation
875 So. 2d 579
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
36 of 36
Treatment dates
2016
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Nelson v. State has one confirmed limited treatment, listed below. Its rule requiring a postconviction motion to identify an uncalled fact witness and allege availability at trial remains in force, but the Florida Supreme Court declined to extend that requirement to every claim involving an expert.
More on how this was screened

All 36 flagged citations have been read.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

36 citations to Nelson v. State sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Nelson v. State?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Florida Supreme Court declined to extend Nelson's requirement to identify an available uncalled witness to every claim that counsel should have consulted or presented an expert.

    State v. Lucas · Supreme Court of Florida · filed

    However, rule 3.850 does not expressly call for the name of a specific expert witness, and the issue in Nelson was not whether a specific expert must be named. Thus, we must decide if we have construed Nelson to require that when a claim is made that counsel should have consulted or called an expert in a specific field of expertise, that expert must be specifically identified and shown to have been available to testify at trial. ... Accordingly, we cannot hold that a defendant is always required to name a specific expert witness and show that the specific expert witness would have been available to testify at trial in order to render a rule 3.850 motion legally sufficient.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Nelson v. State and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace