443 So. 2d 522 - State v. Sweeney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

204 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 204 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““To admit demonstrative evidence at trial, the law requires that the object be identified. The identification can be visual, that is, by testimony at the trial that the object exhibited is the one related to the case. It can also be identified by chain of custody, that is, by establishing the custody of the object from the time it was seized to the time it was offered in evidence. State v. Drew, 360 So.2d 500 (La.1978). The law does not require that the evidence as to custody eliminate all possibilities that the object has been altered. For admission, it suffices if the custodial evidence establishes that it is more probably than not that the object is the one connected with the case. A preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. State v. Dotson, 260 La. 471 , 256 So.2d 594 (1971), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 913 , 93 S.Ct. 242 , 34 L.Ed.2d 173 (1972).””

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bryant · State v. Bell

2. “When the purpose is to show that in the special case on trial the witness is biased, has an interest, or has been corrupted, it is competent to question him as to any particular fact showing or tending to show such bias, interest or corruption, and unless he distinctly admit such fact, any other witness may be examined to establish the same.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Smith · State v. Bruno

3. “| nThe discovery articles are intended to eliminate unwarranted prejudice which could arise from surprise testimony and evidence, to permit the defense to answer the State’s case, and to allow the defendant to properly assess the strength of the State’s evidence in preparing a defense. When the defendant is lulled into a misapprehension of the strength of the State’s case through the prosecution’s failure to disclose timely or fully, and the defendant suffers prejudice when the undisclosed evidence is used against him, basic unfairness results which constitutes reversible error. However, a conviction will not be reversed on the basis of a discovery violation unless prejudice is shown by the trial court’s adverse ruling.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sosa · 78 So. 3d 255 - State v. Johnson