402 So. 2d 678 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 2018
7 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 381 So. 2d 416 - State v. Jones · 353 So. 2d 1005 - State v. Guillot · 347 So. 2d 483 - State v. Anthony · 351 So. 2d 448 - State v. Gray · 385 So. 2d 193 - State v. Davis
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendant argues that the pictures are readily identifiable as mug shots despite the fact that the police data is concealed by the state's evidence tags. Defendant maintains that introduction of the mug shot of the defendant apprised the jury of defendant's prior criminal record and therefore was prejudicial to him. An identical argument was rejected by this court in State v. Jones, 381 So.2d 416 (La.1980). In that case, we framed the issue as whether the probative value of the photographs outweighed the prejudicial effect on the jury. In Jones , as in the instant case, the state's evidence consists primarily of the victim's identification of the defendant. Because of the photograph's relevance to the material issue of identification, and its probative value, the photographs were properly admitted. Further, even assuming that the judge erred in admitting the photographs, the defendant was not prejudiced. During the cross-examination of the two character witnesses called on defendant's behalf, the jury was apprised of defendant's prior criminal record.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A line-up is unduly suggestive if a sufficient resemblance of characteristics and features of the persons in the line-up e.g. build, hair, facial hair and complexion, does not exist to reasonably test the identification. If only one person in the line-up has the characteristics of the perpetrator, the witness' attention will be focused on that person.”
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.