Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 445 So. 2d 1203 - State v. Rault

445 So. 2d 1203 - State v. Rault’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

101
cited by 101 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 96 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 101 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Bottoson v. Florida (1984), 448 So. 2d 676 - State v. Captville (1984)

2 federal appellate · 96 state decisions

5301984199020002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Zant v. Stephens · Pulley v. Harris · 433 So. 2d 104 - State v. Square · 422 So. 2d 123 - State v. Graham

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

  1. “The jury could have reasonably concluded that Rault concocted this version of the crime to hide his own guilt”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““[6] LSA-C.CR.P. art. 770(2) mandates a mistrial when the prosecutor refers to another crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible. The accused may introduce evidence of his character to show he is not the type of person who would commit the particular crime charged. Until he does so, his character is not at issue. State v. Frentz, 354 So.2d 1007 (La., 1978). If the accused does place his character at issue, the state is permitted to “introduce testimony of the bad character of the accused only in rebuttal of the evidence introduced by him to show good character.” LSA-R.S. 15:481. Cross-examination of a character witness may extend to his knowledge of particular misconduct, prior arrests, or other acts relevant to the moral qualities pertinent to defendant’s crime. State v. Bagley, 378 So.2d 1356 (La., 1979). Such inquiries expose the witnesses’ possible lack of knowledge of defendant’s character, and his standard of evaluation.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"(a) whether the sentence was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factors, and "(b) whether the evidence supports the jury's findings of a statutory aggravating circumstance, and "(c) whether the sentence is disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant."”
    3 later decisions 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.