356 So. 2d 974 - State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably 360 So. 2d 500 - State v. Drew (1978), 404 So. 2d 466 - State v. Lindsey (1981)
2 federal appellate · 24 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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · 315 So. 2d 675 - State v. Carlisle · State v. Findley · 278 So. 2d 781 - State v. Moore · Selman v. Louisiana
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The court, on application of the prosecuting attorney, or on application of the defendant shall grant a severance of offenses whenever: "(a) if before trial, it is deemed appropriate to promote a fair determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence of each offense; or "(b) if during the trial upon consent of the defendant, it is deemed necessary to achieve a fair determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence of each offense. The Court shall consider whether, in view of the number of offenses charged and the complexity of the evidence to be offered, the trier of fact will be able to distinguish the evidence and apply the law intelligently as to each offense."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lewis · State v. Cramer“modus operandi of the [other] offenses is so peculiarly distinctive that one must logically say that they are the work of the same person, i. e., they are `signature crimes.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Two critical questions must be determined by the trial judge presented with a motion for severance of offenses. First, he must decide `whether, in view of the number of offenses charged and the complexity of the evidence . . . offered, the trier of fact [could] distinguish the evidence and apply the law intelligently as to each offense.' La.Code Crim.P. art. 495.1; State v. Holstead, 354 So.2d 493 (La.1977); State v. Proctor, 354 So.2d 488 (La.1977). A second question to be decided is whether the offenses joined because they are of the `same or similar character' under La.Code Crim.P. art. 493 (as opposed to `same transaction' or `common plan' joinder) are admissible as similar acts under La.R.S. 15:445 and 446. State v. Holstead, supra ; State v. Carter, 352 So.2d 607 (La.1977). "In relation to the first question, in deciding whether the complexity of the evidence warrants severance of the offenses, an appellate court evaluating the trial judge's denial of defendant's motion will examine the case for various problems: "Some of the dangers inherent in a multiple offense joinder situation are that the jury may become confused in trying to apply the applicable law and evidence to the correct offense; that the jury may consider that a person charged with doing so many things is a bad man who must have done something, a feeling that might lead to a cumulation of the evidence; that the judge might find it difficult to adequately charge a jury as to the law with respect to each of”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lecompte
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.