542 So. 2d 684 - State v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
October 2008
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on New York v. Ferber · 406 So. 2d 1331 - State v. Edwards · 499 So. 2d 332 - State v. Clark · 343 So. 2d 149 - State v. Green · 503 So. 2d 168 - State v. Rattler
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this case, as in Scott, supra, there is sufficient evidence to connect the defendant with the crime independent of the reference in the district attorney’s opening statement. The transaction was in fact complete in this case and the jury could have connected the defendant with the crime without the introduction of Giraud’s statement. Moreover, “the prosecutor’s opening statement is not evidence and has no probative force.” Rather, it is designed to inform the jury that they may understand the evidence as it unfolds and to protect the defendant from surprise: [State v.] Green, [ 343 So.2d 149, 151 (La.1977)]. Here there is no evidence of prosecutorial bad faith or substantial prejudice to the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Although a prosecutor may not refer to inadmissible hearsay, in the absence of prosecutorial bad faith and substantial prejudice to the defendant, the error is not reversible. State v. Scott, 454 So.2d 851 (La.App. 5th Cir.1984).”
1 later decision 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.