247 So. 3d 878 - State v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 United States Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to a trial by an impartial jury. The Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 17 (A) provides that a defendant has a right to challenge jurors peremptorily, with the number being fixed by law at twelve. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 799. When a defendant uses all of his peremptory challenges, a trial judge's erroneous ruling depriving him of one of his peremptory challenges constitutes a substantial violation of his constitutional and statutory rights, requiring reversal of the conviction and sentence. State v. Jacobs, 99-1659, p. 5 (La.6/29/01), 789 So.2d 1280 , 1284 ; State v. Cross, 93-1189 (La.6/30/95), 658 So.2d 683 , 686 ; State v. Maxie, 93-2158 (La.4/10/95), 653 So.2d 526 , 534 ; State v. Robertson, 92-2660 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 1278 , 1280. A trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling on challenges for cause, and its rulings will be reversed only when a review of the entire voir dire reveals the trial judge abused its discretion. Robertson, 92-2660, 630 So.2d at p. 1281 . Prejudice is presumed when a challenge for cause is erroneously denied by a trial court and the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges. Cross , 93-1189 at 1192, 658 So.2d at 686 ; State v. Robertson, 92-2660 at 3-4, 630 So.2d at 1280 ; State v. Ross, 623 So.2d 643 , 644 (La.1993). An erroneous ruling depriving an accused of a peremptory challenge is a substantial violation of his constitutional and statutor”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Walls

2. “However, even if the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the challenges for cause, this assignment of error has no merit in that Defendant cannot show prejudice. As noted, to prove reversible error, a defendant is required to show an erroneous denial of a challenge for cause and the use of all his peremptory challenges. See State v. Turner , 96-845 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/5/97) , 692 So.2d 612 , writ denied , 97-2761 (La. 2/20/98), 709 So.2d 773 . In the current case, for each potential juror challenged for cause and subsequently denied by the trial court, Defendant had peremptory challenges available to excuse the juror after the trial court denied his challenge for cause. He was not forced to accept a juror he felt was prejudicial to his case because all of his peremptory challenges were used. Defendant has failed to show prejudice in this case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Walls

3. “[i]n trialS of offenses punishable by death or necessarily by imprisonment at hard labor, each defendant shall have twelve peremptory challenges, and the state twelve for each defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Walls