State v. Cryer’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably State v. Baxley (1995), 290 So. 2d 681 - State v. Paciera (1974)
65 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3500
Relies on Johnson v. Louisiana · Apodaca v. Oregon · California v. Curry · State v. Harris · State v. Martin
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(3) The failure of the defendant to testify in his own defense; or”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The defendants assert that the statute provides that the State must prove a prima facie case of conspiracy before any statement or act of a co-conspirator can be introduced in evidence. They further contend that the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence of Falcon's acts and declarations before the State had established a prima facie case of conspiracy. "We do not so construe the statute. The statute deals with the effect of the acts and declarations of one conspirator on the other conspirators. It does not purport to regulate the order of proof. "The question of whether a conspiracy has been established is one of fact for the jury. State v. Skinner, 251 La. 300 , 204 So.2d 370 (1967). The jury determines the existence of the conspiracy and the weight to be given the acts and declarations of the parties during the course of the conspiracy. "The order of proof of the conspiracy, the acts, and declarations rest within the sound discretion of the trial judge. When two or more defendants are charged with the same crime, the trial judge may receive evidence of acts and declarations of one of them before the evidence of a conspiracy has been offered. See State v. Courtney, 170 La. 314 , 127 So. 735 (1930); State v. Dundas, 168 La. 95 121 So. 586 (1929); State v. Fernandez, 157 La. 149 , 102 So. 186 (1924); State v. Lebleu, 137 La. 1007 , 69 So. 808 (1915); State v. Gebbia, 121 La. 1083 , 47 So. 32 (1908); State v. Bolden, 109 La. 484 , 33 So. 571 (1903)."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“on the ground that there was no evidence that the defendant was in Jackson Parish at the time of the theft. To the overruling of this motion, defendant reserved Bill of Exceptions No. 8. Defense counsel then moved to quash the entire proceedings on the ground that there was no evidence to show a theft of an automobile. To the overruling of this motion, defendant reserved Bill of Exceptions No. 9. After the verdict, defense counsel filed a motion in arrest of judgment, complaining among other things that there was no evidence that the theft occurred in Jackson Parish. Hence, the court was”
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.