Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 So. 3d 1258 - State v. Simms

143 So. 3d 1258 - State v. Simms’s Empirical Analysis

2014

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 433 So. 2d 688 - State v. Smith · 775 So. 2d 1022 - State v. Casey · State v. Martin · 758 So. 2d 749 - State v. Castleberry · 445 So. 2d 1184 - State v. Jarman

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.

  1. “In State v. Mitchell, 2000-1399 (La.2/21/01), 779 So.2d 698 , the Louisiana Supreme Court held when the prosecutor makes an indirect reference to the defendant’s failure to take the stand and testify, a reviewing court must inquire into the remark’s intended effect on the jury in order to distinguish indirect references to the defendant’s failure to testify (which are impermissible) from general statements that the prosecution’s case is unrebutted (which are permissible). Id. at pp. 4-5, 779 So.2d at 701 (citing State v. Johnson, 541 So.2d 818, 822 (La.1989); State v. Fullilove, 389 So.2d 1282, 1284 (La.1980); State v. Jackson, 454 So.2d 116, 118 (La.1984)). “In order to support the granting of a mistrial, the inference must be plain that the remark was intended to focus the jury’s attention on the defendant’s not testifying.” Id. at p. 5, 779 So.2d at 701 (citing State v. Smith, 327 So.2d 355, 362 (La.1975) (on rehearing); State v. Reed, 284 So.2d 574, 576 (La.1973); State v. Howard, 262 La. 270 , 263 So.2d 32 (1972)). The context of indirect reference is therefore crucial to whether the statement is permissible. The Louisiana Supreme Court further explained that an indirect reference to the failure to testify that mandates the granting of a mistrial occurs where the focus is on the accused’s failure to testify, such as when he is the only witness who can rebut the state’s evidence. However, if another witness who could have testified on the accused’s fybehalf exists, the in”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “A. Aggravated rape is a rape committed upon a person sixty-five years of age or older or where the anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without lawful consent of the victim because it is committed under any one or more of the following circumstances: (1) When the victim resists the act to the utmost, but whose resistance is overcome by force. (2) When the victim is prevented from resisting the act by threats of great and immediate bodily harm, accompanied by apparent power of execution. (3) When the victim is prevented from resisting the act because the offender is armed with a dangerous weapon. (4) When the victim is under the age of thirteen years. Lack of knowledge of the victim’s age shall not be a defense. (5) When two or more offenders participated in the act. (6) When the victim is prevented from resisting the act because the victim suffers from a physical or mental infirmity preventing such resistance. [[Image here]] D. (1) Whoever commits the crime of aggravated rape shall be punished by life im- ■ prisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. [emphasis added]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “I’m telling you [sjhe’s mistaken. I’m telling you he’s innocent.- You know who got on the stand and said that, who said that he’s innocent, that[ ] she’s mistaken? Nobody. The only person that came in her [sic] and told you that is this defense attorney. And let’s be perfectly clear on something, ladies and gentlemen. . What I say is not evidence. What Ms. Parker [the other assistant district attorney] says is not evidence, and what they [the defense] have to say is not evidence. You have zero 'evidence of this man’s innocence. Now, he wants to stand up here and talk about what he’s saying and what he wants to talk about. And you know what’s real funny? From the beginning of this trial throughout this entire trial he hasn’t spoken once about why in the world—”
    1 later decision 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.