310 So. 2d 826 - State v. Boothe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"* * * Without consideration of whether the contents of oral confessions are subject to pre-trial discovery in a motion for a bill of particulars or in a prayer for oyer (Cf. State v. Nelson, 306 So.2d 745 (La.1975)), there is no justification for judicial approval of patent misrepresentation on the part of the State when an item in an application for a bill of particulars seeks to discover oral confessions or inculpatory statements. To the contrary, the Court has previously addressed itself to a situation wherein the State deliberately misled defendants into believing that it had no confessions or inculpatory statements. In State v. Bendo, 281 So.2d 106 (La.1973), the Court reversed the defendants' convictions on the basis that the State's failure to allow pre-trial inspection of the tape-recorded inculpatory statements was error. The tape-recorded statements were distinguished from mere oral statements and placed in a category of discoverable statements, along with written statements (see State v. Dorsey, 207 La. 928 , 22 So.2d 273 (1945)) and video taped statements (see State v. Hall, 253 La. 425 , 218 So.2d 320 (1969)). * * *" 310 So.2d at 829-30 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hodges · 340 So. 2d 157 - State v. Jenkins

2. “no confession, admission or adverse statement of the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 337 So. 2d 1145 - State v. Perkins