582 So. 2d 947 - State v. Bean’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (1) Present sense impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter. . . . . . (3) Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition. A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), offered to prove the declarant's then existing condition or his future action. A statement of memory or belief, however, is not admissible to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant's testament.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 688 So. 2d 628 - State v. Rhodes · 607 So. 2d 937 - State v. Hicks

2. “A mistrial shall be ordered where prejudicial conduct inside or outside the courtroom makes it impossible to obtain a fair trial. La.C.Cr.P. art. 775. It is a drastic remedy and should be declared only when unnecessary prejudice results to the accused. The determination of whether prejudice has resulted lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. The denial of a mistrial will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Smith, supra .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 651 So. 2d 890 - State v. Smith · 743 So. 2d 284 - State v. Armstrong

3. “A relative attempted to help the child answer some questions at the competency hearing but was not present during the child's testimony before the jury. The appellate court found that the relative's actions”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 647 So. 2d 428 - State v. Allen