351 So. 2d 448 - State v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Assignments of Error Nos. 11 and 12 Defendant contends that the trial court erred in accepting a state witness as an expert in the comparison of hairs (Assignment of Error No. 11) and in permitting the introduction into evidence of the hair samples used by the witness in her comparison tests (Assignment of Error No. 12). La.R.S. 15:466 provides: The test of the competency of an expert is his knowledge of the subject about which he is called upon to express an opinion, and before any witness can give evidence as an expert his competency so to testify must have been established to the satisfaction of the court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Huckaby · 359 So. 2d 137 - State v. Sepulvado

2. “A trial judge is granted much discretion in determining the composition of the jury. The mere existence of personal acquaintances between a prospective juror and the trial participants does not, without more, demonstrate a lack of fitness to serve as a juror. In the present case all three of the prospective jurors stated on voir dire that the relationship involved would not prevent their impartial service on the jury. We cannot say that the failure to excuse these jurors was an abuse of the trial judge's discretion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 795 So. 2d 1176 - Scott v. American Tobacco Co. · 499 So. 2d 114 - Seals v. Pittman

3. “In State v. Vernon, 251 La. 1099 , 208 So.2d 690 (1968) and State v. McGregor, 257 La. 956 , 244 So.2d 846 (1971), we refused to reverse convictions when the district attorney referred to the defendant as an animal, in part because the evidence supported that characterization. Certain morally reprehensible conduct, such as that at issue in the present case, defies characterization as civilized behavior and may more faithfully be described as that of an animal. While in some cases a similar statement by the State may require reversal, we cannot say that the remark was so unfairly prejudicial as to require such a drastic remedy. See State v. Williams, [ 346 So.2d 181 (La.1977)]; State v. Lee, 340 So.2d 180 (La.1976).”

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