514 So. 2d 99 - State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2017 · most notably Erickson v. Illinois (1988), 516 So. 2d 349 - State v. Thompson (1987)
1 federal appellate · 74 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Malloy v. Hogan · Hoffman v. United States
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have considered the issue of the level of proof necessary to establish prior convictions in cases arising under this state's multiple offender law, La.Rev. Stat.Ann. § 15:529.1 (West 1981 & Supp. 1987). When a defendant is prosecuted under that statute, proof that the accused was convicted of a prior offense is necessary to establish an essential element of the crime charged. In that context, we have held that the fact that the defendant and the person described in the records evidencing the prior convictions have the same name is, standing alone, insufficient to prove that the defendant was the same person who was convicted of the previous crimes. City of Monroe v. French, 345 So.2d 23 (La. 1977); State v. Curtis, 319 So.2d 434 (La.1975). While it is permissible for the state to introduce certified copies of court records evidencing prior convictions, we have determined that § 15:529.1 requires independant proof that the defendant was the same person identified in the records. The state may establish proof of identity in various ways, such as the testimony of witnesses to the prior crimes, expert testimony matching the fingerprints of the accused with those in the record of the prior proceeding, or photographs contained in a duly authenticated record. State v. Curtis, 338 So.2d 662, 664 (La. 1976).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“evident from the implication of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Darby, Edwards, and Coleman all held that question by question invocation of the privilege was not necessary under circumstances in which the witness invoking the privilege was charged with participating in the same crime as the defendant on trial and in which it was apparent that the questioning would be devoted to subject matter which would require the defendant to invoke the privilege. ... In other words, where a witness in this position has reasonable grounds to assert the privilege as to the entire area of expected questioning, we have not required the witness to take the 128stand and risk making an injurious disclosure through any answer or explanation of a refusal to answer.”
2 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.