486 So. 2d 327 - State v. Feazell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Leading questions are ordinarily prohibited when propounded to one's own witness unless such witness is unwilling or hostile. LSA-R.S. 15:277. [3] However, it is well settled that an exception is usually made when questioning a young child. State v. Kelly, 456 So.2d 642 (La.App. 2d Cir.1984), writ denied, 461 So.2d 312 (La.1984); State v. Kahey, 436 So.2d 475 (La.1983); State v. Bolton, 408 So.2d 250 (La.1981); State v. Francis, 337 So.2d 487 (La.1976). Furthermore, notwithstanding the general rule against leading questions, the matter is largely within the discretion of the trial court and in the absence of palpable abuse of that discretion resulting in prejudice to the accused, a finding of reversible error is not warranted. State v. Kelly, supra ; State v. Francis, supra .”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Carper · State v. Guerra

2. “A. The videotape of an oral statement of the child made before the proceeding begins may be admissible into evidence if: (1) No attorney for either party was present when the statement was made; (2) The recording is both visual and oral and is recorded on film or videotape or by other electronic means; (3) The recording is accurate, has not been altered, and reflects what the witness or victim said; (4) The statement was not made in response to questioning calculated to lead the child to make a particular statement; (5) Every voice on the recording is identified; (6) The person conducting the interview of the child in the recording is present at the proceeding and available to testify or be cross-examined by either party; (7) The defendant or the attorney for the defendant is afforded an opportunity to view the recording before it is offered into evidence; and (8) The child is available to testify. B. The admission into evidence of the videotape of a child as authorized herein shall not preclude the prosecution from calling the child as a witness or taking the child's testimony outside of the courtroom as authorized in R.S. 15:283. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prohibit the defendant's right of confrontation. (Emphasis added.)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Am · State v. In the Interest of A.M.

3. “A videotape of a child fourteen years of age or under may be offered in evidence either for or against a defendant charged with the rape or physical or sexual abuse of a child. To render such a videotape competent evidence, it must be satisfactorily proved: (1) That such electronic recording was voluntarily made by the victim of the physical or sexual abuse. (2) That no relative of the victim of the physical or sexual abuse was present in the room where the recording was made. (3) That such recording was not made of answers to interrogatories calculated to lead the child to make any particular statement. (4) That the recording is accurate, has not been altered, and reflects what the witness or victim said. (5) That the taking of the child's statement was supervised by a physician, a social worker, a law enforcement officer, a licensed psychologist, a licensed professional counselor, or an authorized representative of the Department of Social Services. (Emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 625 So. 2d 325 - State v. Duke · 900 So. 2d 325 - State v. Watson