State v. Plummer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 851(1) permits the trial judge to grant the defendant a new trial if the verdict rendered by the jury is contrary to the law and the evidence. This power is exclusively that of the trial judge when inquiry is directed to the alleged insufficiency of the evidence (as contrasted with no evidence at all). This Court is prohibited from reviewing questions of fact in criminal cases. LSA-Const. Art. VII, Sec. 10; LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 858. In accordance with these provisions, we have uniformly held that a bill of exceptions reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review. State v. Crockett, 262 La. 197 , 263 So.2d 6 (1972); State v. Williams, 262 La. 160 , 262 So.2d 507 (1972); State v. Landry, 262 La. 32 , 262 So.2d 360 (1972); State v. Singleton, 252 La. 976 , 215 So.2d 512 (1968); State v. Stokes, 250 La. 277 , 195 So.2d 267 (1967).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 338 So. 2d 654 - State v. Sharp · 340 So. 2d 256 - State v. Skelton

2. “... the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 439 So. 2d 1099 - State v. Korman