290 So. 2d 690 - State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Evidence of similar acts is admissible to show system, knowledge or intent under R.S. 15:445 and 15:446. We explained in State v. Spencer, 257 La. 672 , 243 So. 2d 793 (1971) that crimes of `system' are those acts and offenses which are of like nature and exhibit like methods or plans of operation. Spencer was a prosecution for armed robbery, and we held that the evidence as to another armed robbery was admissible since it followed the same modus operandi as the armed robbery charged and was related in time and location. "Likewise, in the recent case of State v. Grant and Dixon, 295 So.2d 168 on the docket of this Court, decided October 29, 1973, we stated: "`Our jurisprudence is uniform in holding that evidence of other armed robberies is admissible where almost identical tactics are used to show the "system" or modus operandi employed by the defendant. [footnote omitted] See State v. Prieur, supra ; State v. Carney, 260 La. 995 , 257 So.2d 687 (1972); State v. Modelist, 260 La. 945 , 257 So.2d 669 (1972); State v. Moore, supra [ 278 So.2d 781 (La.1973)]; State v. Montegut, 257 La. 665 , 243 So.2d 791 (1971); State v. Spencer, 257 La. 672 , 243 So.2d 793 (1971).'"”

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

2. “"The transcript of the testimony of any other witness who testified at the preliminary examination is admissible for any purpose in any subsequent proceeding in the case, on behalf of either party, if the court finds that the witness is dead, too ill to testify, absent from the state, or cannot be found, and that the absence of the witness was not procured by the party offering the testimony." (Emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 338 So. 2d 645 - State v. Owens