State v. Batiste’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 56 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" Under the generally accepted view an entrapment is perpetrated when a law enforcement official or a person acting in cooperation with such an official, for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, solicits, encourages, or otherwise induces another person to engage in conduct constituting such offense when he is not then otherwise disposed to do so. ALI Model Penal Code, Tentative Draft § 2.10; W. LaFave and A. Scott, Criminal Law, § 48 (1972). This view, which has been labeled the `subjective' or `origin of intent' test for entrapment, reflects the views espoused in majority opinions of the United States Supreme Court, Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 , 96 S.Ct. 1646 , 48 L.Ed.2d 113 (1976); United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 , 93 S.Ct. 1637 , 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973); Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 , 78 S.Ct. 819 , 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958); Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 , 53 S.Ct. 210 , 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932). The lower federal courts are in accord. See, e.g., United States v. Esquer-Gamez, 550 F.2d 1231 (9th Cir.1977); United States v. Garcia, 546 F.2d 613 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Russo, 540 F.2d 1152 (1st Cir. 1976); United States v. Jackson, 539 F.2d 1087 (6th Cir.1976). It is so called because it focuses attention on the defendant's predisposition to commit the offense as well as the actions of law enforcement officials. The inquiry under this test goes beyond the fact that criminal conduct was committed at the instan”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Marks · State v. Williams

2. ““An overwhelming majority of courts are of the view that such evidence is admissible because of its relevance to the issue of the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime ... * fc ⅝ * * * “However, in recognition of the danger that the trier of fact may place undue emphasis on the evidence of other criminal activity and perhaps judge the defendant guilty on the basis of this other evidence, courts have wisely determined that the introduction of such evidence must be controlled in a reasonable manner. See, United States v. Johnston, 426 F.2d 112 (7th Cir.1970); Hansford v. United States, 112 U.S.App.A.C. 354, 303 F.2d 219 (1962). Thus, as a threshold requirement, the evidence is not admissible unless it has been demonstrated clearly that the entrapment defense will be invoked. Anticipation by the state that such a defense may be raised is not sufficient basis for admission of such evidence ... “Assuming that the defendant chooses to raise an entrapment defense, other crimes evidence utilized by the state must be of a similar character of the offense for which the defendant is on trial. See, e.g., State v. Matheson, 363 A.2d 716 (Me.1976). Another factor which the trial court should consider in determining whether the evidence is to be admissible is the remoteness in time of the offenses. See, United States v. White, 390 F.2d 405 (6th Cir.1968); Hansford v. United States, 112 U.S.App. 359, 303 F.2d 219 (1962). Moreover, the trial judge must consider whether, under the cir”

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

3. “"... courts have recognized that an attempt to establish the credibility of a witness before that credibility has been assailed carries the inherent prejudicial danger of bolstering, in advance, a witness' testimony and increasing its probative strength with the jury." 363 So.2d at 640 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 412 So. 2d 1337 - State v. Winn