State v. Bretz’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably State v. Prestridge (1981), 445 So. 2d 1171 - State v. Williams (1984)
41 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 State v. Sepulvado · 377 So. 2d 308 - State v. Carthan · 304 So. 2d 300 - State v. Kaufman · 347 So. 2d 172 - State v. Taylor · 337 So. 2d 1168 - State v. Robinson
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The argument shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law applicable to the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The scope of closing argument is limited to the evidence admitted, the lack of evidence, conclusions of fact drawn therefrom, and the law applicable to the case. C.Cr.P. art. 774. Particularly unwanted are comments by the prosecutor referring to matters allegedly within his personal knowledge, but not in evidence. State v. Kaufman, 304 So.2d 300 (La.1974). The reason for this prohibition is that such remarks attempt to add to or subtract from the actual evidence in the record through the influence of the prosecutor’s official position. The jury may give greater weight to these observations than to the actual evidence and may, consequently, determine guilt or innocence on the basis of the prosecutor’s opinion. However, not every remark of this type will warrant reversal. C.Cr.P. art. 921. Before a verdict will be overturned on the basis of improper argument, this Court must be thoroughly convinced that the jury was influenced by the remarks and that they contributed to the verdict. State v. Carthan, 377 So.2d 308 (La.1979); State v. Heads, 370 So.2d 564 (La.1979).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Headley“expressly or impliedly based on the evidence”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sanders
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.