13 So. 3d 187 - State v. Riggins’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
March 2011
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Melka Marine, Inc. v. United States · State ex rel. Newton v. State · 750 So. 2d 867 - State v. Hampton · Finnie v. LeBlanc
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Despite the differing definitions of a continuance and a recess, a motion for a recess is governed by the same standards as a motion for a continuance. State v. Rodriguez, 02-334, p. 14 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/14/03), 839 So.2d 106, 117 , writ denied, 03-0482 (La.5/30/03), 845 So.2d 1061 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 972 , 124 S.Ct. 444 , 157 L.Ed.2d 321 (2003). In general, whether to grant or deny a recess rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and a reviewing court will not disturb the ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Hampton, 1998-0331, p. 9 (La.4/23/99), 750 So.2d 867, 877 . A motion for a continuance based on the absence of a witness must meet specific criteria. La.C.Cr.P. art. 709 provides the motion must state: (1) Facts to which the absent witness is expected to testify, showing the materiality of the testimony and the | n necessity for the presence of the witness at the trial; (2) Facts and circumstances showing a probability that the witness will be available at the time to which the trial is deferred; and (3) Facts showing due diligence used in an effort to procure attendance of the witness. The trial court has great discretion in granting a recess; denial of a motion for a recess is not grounds for reversal, absent an abuse of that discretion and the showing of specific prejudice. State v. Stevenson, 02-0079, p. 3 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/30/02), 817 So.2d 343, 345 . To show prejudicial error sufficient to warrant reversal, the defendant must show”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.