State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In State v. Williams , 44,418, p. 8 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/24/09), 15 So.3d 348 , 353-54, writ denied , 09-1746 (La. 3/26/10), 29 So.3d 1250 , the second circuit addressed the State's authority to amend indictments, stating: The prosecutor has the authority under La. C. Cr. P. art. 487 to make substantive amendments to an indictment at any time before the beginning of trial, subject to the defendant's right under La. C. Cr. P. art. 489 to move for a continuance if the amendment led to his prejudice. State v. Crochet , 05-0123 (La. 6/23/06), 931 So.2d 1083 . The purpose of a continuance is to protect defendant from surprise or prejudice which may result from such amendment. State v. Cleveland, 25,628 (La.App.2d Cir. 1/19/94), 630 So.2d 1365 . When the state requests an amendment to the bill of information before the first prospective juror is called, the defendant's remedy is a motion for continuance, not an objection to the amendment. State v. Ignot , 29,745 (La.App.2d Cir. 8/24/97), 701 So.2d 1001 , writ denied , 99-0336 (La. 6/18/99), 745 So.2d 618 . Accordingly, the defendant's remedy was to seek a continuance, not an objection to the amendment to the bill of information.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lyons · State v. Jones