495 So. 2d 1262 - State v. Bates’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 40 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “prejudicial conduct inside or outside the courtroom makes it impossible for the defendant to receive a fair trial.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 958 So. 2d 93 - State v. Short · 736 So. 2d 162 - State v. Wessinger

2. “All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether present or absent, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, aid and abet in its commission, or directly or indirectly counsel or procure another to commit the crime, are principals.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 111 So. 3d 535 - State v. Acker · 612 So. 2d 959 - State, in Interest of Mss

3. “when he left [the victim’s house,] he saw a woman hanging clothes but she didn’t see him,” thus corroborating the testimony of Nelma Boutee, who claimed to have seen defendant in the area of the victim’s house on the morning of the murder. Finally, when Jenkins asked defendant why he had raped Mrs. Young, defendant replied that "that bitch had good pussy.” . La.Code Crim.P. art. 921 provides: A judgment or ruling shall not be reversed by an appellate court because of any error, de-feet, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights of the accused. . Defendant also made two other confessions, neither of which was received into evidence. The first was a videotaped confession made by defendant to the St. Landry Parish police. However, the trial judge ordered part of this confession suppressed and therefore the state decided not to introduce the confession into evidence. The second confession was made by defendant to his mother; however, the state also declined to introduce this confession into evidence. Since neither of these confessions is in evidence, we do not consider them in testing the sufficiency of the evidence against defendant. . The state introduced no evidence to show that the murder was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner. . The 1984 Legislature added a fifth circumstance: "When two or more offenders participated in the act.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Garmouche