Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 542 SO2D 1373 - State v. Murphy

State v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably State v. Martin (1992), State v. Stec (1999)

26 state decisions

1901989199020002010decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Lockhart v. Nelson · Coy v. Iowa · 391 So. 2d 421 - State v. Gibson · State v. Thorne

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

  1. “The court of appeal improperly declined to address defendant's contention that the circumstances did not justify the use of the Section 283 procedure because defendant had not assigned this as an error. When a contention is made for the first time on appeal, the appellate court may require the defendant to file a supplemental assignment of error, thereby permitting the trial court to make an appropriate response. However, the appellate court may not arbitrarily refuse to consider the contention, especially one of constitutional dimensions, on the basis of the record on appeal. State v. Murphy, 542 So.2d 1373 at 1375 (ft. 4) (La. 1989) citing State v. Thome, 514 So.2d 1170 (La.1987).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “The evidence, other than the child's testimony in court, consisted of her hearsay statements to her mother and to the police, as well as the mother's testimony that the vaginal area "looked red" (a condition apparently not observed during the child's bath) and the child's stepfather's testimony (denied by defendant) that the child was sitting on defendant's lap alone in the room when the stepfather arrived at defendant's home on the evening in question. There were no vaginal tears or abrasions or other physical evidence indicating abuse. We therefore conclude that the remaining evidence in this case falls short of establishing that the confrontation error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The court shall ensure that the child cannot see or hear the accused unless such viewing or hearing is requested for purposes of identification. However, the court shall ensure that the accused is afforded the ability to consult with his attorney during the testimony of the child.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.