131 So. 3d 109 - State v. Augustine’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Even where a prosecutor’s argument has exceeded the scope of art. 774 or is deemed to be improper, a reviewing court should credit the good sense and fair-mindedness of the jurors who have heard the evidence. State v. Williams, 96-1023 (La.1/21/98), 708 So.2d 703 ; Clark; State v. Ricard, 98-2278, 99-0424 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/19/00) , 751 So.2d 393 . In addition, “a reviewing court will not reverse a conviction unless thoroughly convinced that the argument influenced the jury and contributed to the verdict.” Clark , at p. 15, 828 So.2d at 1173 . See also State v. Draughn, 2005-1825 (La.1/17/07), 950 So.2d 583 ; Casey; State v. Wiltz, 2008-1441 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/16/09) , 28 So.3d 554 . As the Court noted in Draughn : “Mistrial is a drastic remedy, and the determination of | ^whether prejudice to the defendant has resulted from the prosecutor’s comments lies in the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Leonard, 2005-1382 p. 11 (La.6/16/06), 932 So.2d 660, 667 . Moreover, a trial judge has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing argument. State v. Prestridge, 399 So.2d 564, 580 (La.1981).” Draughn , at p. 44, 950 So.2d at 614 . [Emphasis added by this court in Augustine.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 146 So. 3d 777 - State v. Cushenberry

2. “As per La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 774, the scope of closing argument “shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law applicable to the case.” Art. 774 further provides that closing argument “shall not appeal to prejudice,” and the State’s rebuttal argument “shall be confined to answering the argument of the defendant.” A prosecutor should refrain from making personal attacks on defense strategy and counsel. State v. Manning, 03-1982, p. 75 (La.10/19/04), 885 So.2d 1044, 1108 (citing State v. Brumfield, 96-2667 (La.10/20/98), 737 So.2d 660 and State v. Duplessis, 457 So.2d 604 (La.1984)). While jurisprudence has found that prosecutors may not refer to personal experience or turn their argument into a commentary on crime, prosecutors have “wide latitude in choosing closing argument tactics.” State v. Clark, 01-2087, p. 15 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/25/02), 828 So.2d 1173, 1183 . See also State v. Casey, 99-0023 (La.1/26/00), 775 So.2d 1022 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 146 So. 3d 777 - State v. Cushenberry