State v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[The excited utterance exception] requires an occurrence or event sufficiently startling to render the declarant's normal reflective thought processes inoperative. State v. Reaves, 569 So.2d 650 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1990), writ den., 576 So.2d 25 (La.1991). Furthermore, the statement of the declarant must have been a spontaneous reaction to the occurrence or event and not the result of reflective thought. State v. Henderson, 362 So.2d 1358 (La.1978). In determining whether the declarant was under stress of an excited event, the time span between the event and the statement is considered the most important factor. State v. Reaves, supra . The trial court must determine whether the interval between the event and the statement was of sufficient duration to permit a subsidence of emotional upset and a restoration of a reflective thought process. State v. Henderson supra . Other factors which may indicate that a statement was the result of a reflective thought, but which do not automatically justify exclusion, are (1) evidence that the statement was self serving or made in response to an inquiry; expansion of the excited utterance beyond a description of the event and into past or future facts; and proof that, between the event and the statement, the declarant performed tasks requiring reflective thought process. State v. Baker, 582 So.2d 1320, 1331 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991).”

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

2. “depends upon the totality of the circumstances, including who initiated the further questioning; the time delay between the original request and subsequent questioning; whether Miranda warnings were given before each interrogation; whether a waiver of rights form was signed; and whether the police exerted pressure on the defendant between the time he invoked his right to silence and the subsequent interrogation. State v. Brooks, supra. 582 So.2d at 1328-1329 . In support of its argument, Relator suggests that a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 668 So. 2d 454 - State v. Hohn

3. “A defendant must make known the grounds for his objection. La.C.Cr.P. art. 841. He is limited on appeal to those grounds articulated at trial and must point to the specific error so that the trial court has the opportunity to make the proper ruling and prevent or cure any possible error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 630 So. 2d 884 - State v. Straughter