Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 144 So. 3d 120 - State v. Jones

144 So. 3d 120 - State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

2014

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 847 So. 2d 1198 - State v. Love · 708 So. 2d 401 - State v. Byrd · 312 So. 2d 282 - State v. Rembert · State v. Harvey · 108 So. 3d 296 - State v. Schmolke

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

  1. “LAlthough the back of the indictment contains a place for a notation that the indictment was returned in open court, to be signed and dated by the minute clerk, that portion is blank, as are the portions following that pertain to the date of arraignment, any disposition of the case, and sentencing, all also to be signed and dated by the minute clerk. While there has been no disposition or sentencing in this case, the defendant has been arraigned and has pled not guilty, but that event is also not reflected on the back of the indictment. [[Image here]] In State v. Shields, 33 La.Ann. 991 (1881), the Court reversed the defendant’s conviction because there was no indication that the indictment that charged him was returned by the jury in open court. The Court noted that there was no minute entry of the return nor any other indication that it was returned in open court, nor was there a minute entry showing that the grand jury was even empanelled. The Court also noted that although it was “not improbable” that the indictment was returned by the jury, the Court could not presume that this actually happened. Likewise, in State v. Sandoz, 37 La.Ann. 376 (1885), and State v. Pitts, 39 La.Ann. 914 , 3 So. 118 (1887), the Court reversed the defendants’ convictions because there were no entries in the court’s minutes indicating that the indictments were returned in open court. As argued by the State, these cases are distinguishable from the present case because here there is a certified ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “An indictment is a written -accusation of crime made by a grand jury. It must be concurred in by not less than nine of the grand jurors, indorsed “a true bill,” and the indorsement must be signed by the foreman. Indictments shall be returned into the district court in open court; but when an indictment has been returned for an offense which is within the trial jurisdiction of another court in the parish, the indictment may be transferred to that court.”
    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.