365 So. 2d 1352 - State v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably 446 So. 2d 729 - State v. Prudholm (1984), 445 So. 2d 1155 - State v. Humphrey (1984)
35 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 Holloway v. Arkansas · State v. Madison · 340 So. 2d 157 - State v. Jenkins · 337 So. 2d 1201 - State v. Overton · 349 So. 2d 311 - State v. Anderson
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“11sWhere it is clear from the record that a co-defendant would give exculpatory testimony if a severance were granted, the denial of a severance is an abuse of discretion. See, La.C.Cr.P. art. 704, Official Revision Comment (c)(2). However, the burden is on the movant to establish that the co-defendant would, in fact, testify at a separate trial, and the exculpatory nature of his proposed testimony. See, 8 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 14.04(4).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“While the record does not affirmatively establish that the five years had or had not elapsed, the showing indicates that more probably than not it had not elapsed between the crimes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This Court’s review of a trial court’s denial of a new trial motion based on [the ground that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence under La.C.Cr.P. art. 851(1)] is limited to the question of whether the trial judge has properly exercised his wide discretion.”) 2 . Also, as we always do, we have independently reviewed the record for errors patent. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 920(2). We discern no error patent. 3 . In the quote from Miller we have excised the following portion and replaced it with an ellipsis:”
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.