142 So. 3d 265 - State v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The grounds for a motion for new trial are found in Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 851, which provided at the time the defendant filed his motion: The motion for a new trial is based on the supposition that injustice has been done the defendant, and, unless such is shown to have been the case the motion shall be denied, no matter upon what allegations it is grounded. The court, on motion of the defendant, shall grant a new trial whenever: (1) The verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence; (2) The court's ruling on a written motion, or an objection made during the proceedings, shows prejudicial error; (3) New and material evidence that, notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the defendant, was not discovered before or during the trial, is available, and if the evidence had been introduced at the trial it would probably have changed the verdict or judgment of guilty; (4) The defendant has discovered, since the verdict or judgment of guilty, a prejudicial error or defect in the proceedings that, notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the defendant, was not discovered before the verdict or judgment; or (5) The court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served by the granting of a new trial, although the defendant may not be entitled to a new trial as a matter of strict legal right. In addition, Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 858, "Review of a ruling on motion for new trial," provides: Neither the a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 245 So. 3d 93 - State v. Drummer

2. “Further, the ruling on a motion for a new trial is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion. State v. Bibbins , 13-875 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/9/14) [ 140 So.3d 153 ] ; State v. Gerard , 96-366 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/14/96) , 685 So.2d 253 , 260. The merits of a motion for a new trial must be viewed with extreme caution in the interest of preserving the finality of judgments. Id. ; see also State v. Rodriguez , 02-334 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/14/03) , 839 So.2d 106 , 133, 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).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 245 So. 3d 93 - State v. Drummer