337 So. 2d 484 - State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1991
8 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
Relies on State v. Dotson · State v. Bueche · State v. Dunnington · State v. Jack · State v. Copling
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To admit demonstrative evidence at a trial, the law requires that the object be identified. The identification can be visual, that is, by testimony at the trial that the object exhibited is the one related to the case. It can also be identified by chain of custody, that is, by establishing the custody of the object from the time it was seized to the time it is offered in evidence. The law does not require that the evidence as to custody eliminate all possibility that the object has been altered. For admission, it suffices if the custodial evidence establishes that it is more probable than not that the object is the one connected with the case. A preponderance of the evidence is sufficient, [citations omitted] The lack of positive identification goes to the weight of the evidence, rather than to its admissibility. Ultimately, connexity of physical evidence is a factual matter for determination by the jury, [citations omitted]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fournier“"The verdict of the jury rendered against him . . . is contrary to the law and evidence in the following particulars: "A. The jury finding that the can of `Halt' spray, was a dangerous weapon within the meaning of LRS 14:2(3) is clearly contrary to the evidence presented by the defense at trial, and the law of the State of Louisiana; "B. The jury finding that defendant, James J. Robinson, robbed Melvin Light is further contrary to the evidence presented by the defense at trial. "Defendant is aggrieved by the said verdict of the jury, and desires and is entitled to a new trial, pursuant to Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 851(1) [that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence.]"”
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.