State v. Francis’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably State v. Edwards (1982), 377 So. 2d 308 - State v. Carthan (1979)
30 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 290 So. 2d 273 - State v. Fallon · State v. Nails · State v. Hollingsworth · 301 So. 2d 323 - State v. Pace · State v. Warlick
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Understanding, and not age, must determine whether any person tendered as a witness shall be sworn; but no child less than twelve years of age shall, over the objection either of the district attorney or of the defendant, be sworn as a witness, until the court is satisfied, after examination, that such child has sufficient understanding to be a witness.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“... Thus, the judge, when need appears, will ordinarily permit leading questions to children, or to witnesses so ignorant, timid, weak-minded, or deficient in the English language, that they cannot otherwise be brought to understand what information is sought. It is recognized, especially as to children, that in these cases the danger of false suggestion is at its highest, but it is better to face that danger than to abandon altogether the effort to bring out what the witness knows.... McCormick, Evidence, sec. 6 at page 10 (Cleary, 2d ed. 1972). In State v. Williams, 143 La. 424 , 78 So. 662 (1918), this court held that it would not be objectionable to ask leading questions of the twelve-year-old victim of a rape. We stated: ... [T]he rule forbidding leading questions is not so rigid that it should not yield somewhat to the discretion of the trial judge in the examination of a very young or timid witness. Furthermore, notwithstanding the general rule against leading questions, the matter is largely within the discretion of the trial court and in absence of palpable abuse of that discretion resulting in prejudice to the accused, a finding of reversible error is not warranted. State v. Fallon, 290 So.2d 273 (La.1974); State v. Hollingsworth, 160 La. 26 , 106 So. 662 (1925).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“". . . `Thus, the judge, when need appears, will ordinarily permit leading questions to children, or to witnesses so ignorant, timid, weak-minded, or deficient in the English language, that they cannot otherwise be brought to understand what information is sought. It is recognized, especially as to children, that in these cases the danger of false suggestion is at its highest, but it is better to face that danger than to abandon altogether the effort to bring out what the witness knows. . . ." State v. Francis, 337 So.2d 487, 489 (La.1976), quoting from McCormick, Evidence, sec. 6 at page 10 (Cleary, 2d ed. 1972). (Emphasis added).”
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.