194 So. 3d 92 - State v. Dove’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. ““Unfair prejudice,” as used in La. C.E. art. 403, means that “the offered evidence has ‘an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.’ ” Author’s Note (3), La. C.E. art. 403, Handbook on Louisiana Evidence Law, Pugh, Force, Rault & Triche, p. 380 (2011). A trial court is vested with much discretion in determining whether the probative value of relevant evidence is substantially outweighed by its ^prejudicial effect. State v. Henry, 11-1137, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/24/12), 102 So.3d 1016, 1022 . A trial court’s ruling on the admissibility under La. C.E. art. 404 B(l) is renewable under an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Henderson, 12-2422, pp. 3-4 (La. 1/4/13), 107 So.3d 566, 568 ; State v. Barnes, 11-1421, p. 15 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/19/12), 100 So.3d 926, 936 . A trial court’s ruling as to the relevancy of evidence will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Sanders, 12-0409, p. 14 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/14/12), 104 So.3d 619, 630 . “A trial court is vested with much discretion in determining whether the probative value of relevant evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.” [State v.] Girard, 12-0790, p. 6 [(La. App. 4 Cir. 3/6/13], 110 So.3d [687,] 691.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 206 So. 3d 311 - State v. Thomassie

2. “Our state constitution (Art. I, § 17 ), statutory law ( La.C.Cr.P. art. 782 A), and both federal and state jurisprudence ( Apodaca v. Oregon , 406 U.S. 404 , 92 S.Ct. 1628 , 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972) ; State v. Bertrand, 08-2215, 08-2311, pp. 6-7 (La. 3/17/09), 6 So.3d 738 , 742 ; State v. Curtis, 11-1676, p. 23 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/13/13), 112 So.3d 323 , 335 ) have upheld this procedural device that a less than unanimous jury (ten of twelve jurors) is sufficient to convict a person for second degree murder.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 249 So. 3d 260 - State v. Alridge

3. “is one that unduly focuses a witness' attention on a defendant. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 249 So. 3d 260 - State v. Alridge