State v. Magee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

56 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A change of venue shall be granted when the applicant proves that by reason of prejudice existing in the public mind or because of undue influence, or that for any other reason, a fair and impartial trial cannot be obtained in the parish where the prosecution is pending. In deciding whether to grant a change of venue the court shall consider whether the prejudice, the influence, or the other reasons are such that they will affect the answers of jurors on the voir dire examination or the testimony of witnesses at the trial.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Walker · 183 So. 3d 640 - State v. Rumley

2. “"Photographs are generally admissible if they illustrate any fact, shed any light upon an issue in the case, or are relevant to describe the person, thing, or place depicted." State v. Sepulvado , 93-2692, p. 7 (La.4/8/96), 672 So.2d 158 , 164. A district court's ruling with respect to the admissibility of photographs will not be overturned unless it is clear the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs its probative value. State v. Maxie , 93-2158, p. 11 n. 8 (La.4/10/95), 653 So.2d 526 , 532 n. 8. Even when the cause of death is undisputed, the state is entitled to the moral force of its evidence and post-mortem photographs of murder victims are admissible to prove corpus delicti, to corroborate other evidence establishing cause of death, as well as the location and placement of wounds, and to provide positive identification of the victim. State v. Koon , 96-1208, p. 34 (La.5/20/97), 704 So.2d 756 , 776 ; State v. Watson , 449 So.2d 1321 , 1326 (La.1984) ; State v. Kirkpatrick , 443 So.2d 546 , 554-55 (La.1983). Photographic evidence will be admitted unless it is so gruesome that it overwhelms jurors' reason and leads them to convict without sufficient other evidence. Koon , 96-1208 at 34, 704 So.2d at 776 . The admission of "gruesome photographs is not reversible error unless it is clear that their probative value is substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect." State v. Broaden , 99-2124, p. 23 (La.2/21/01), 780 So.2d 349 , 364, quoting State v. Martin , 93-0”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 162 So. 3d 1284 - State v. Mack · 257 So. 3d 229 - State v. Dotson

3. “Nevertheless, a trial error does not provide grounds for reversal of a defendant’s conviction and sentence unless it affects substantial rights of the accused. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 921; State v. Johnson, 94-1379, pp. 16-17 (La.11/27/95), 664 So.2d 94, 101-02 . The test is whether there is a reasonable possibility the error might have contributed to the conviction and whether the court can declare a belief that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22-23 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Green, 493 So.2d 1178, 1185 (La.1986). The reviewing court must find the verdict actually rendered by this jury was surely unattributable to the error. Johnson , 94-1379 at 18, 664 So.2d at 101-02 ; Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993)....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 131 So. 3d 136 - State v. Pierce · 126 So. 3d 569 - State v. Vargas-Alcerreca