State v. Gene’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably State v. Bradford (1997), 599 So. 2d 326 - State v. Bellamy (1992)
38 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 · Faretta v. California · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · 384 So. 2d 355 - State v. Bonanno · 433 So. 2d 688 - State v. Smith
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While a mistrial is mandatory when a judge, district attorney, or court official refers to inadmissible other crimes evidence in the presence of the jury, our jurisprudence has held that a police officer is not a “court official.” See State v. Carter, 412 So.2d 540 (La.1982); State v. Gene, 587 So.2d 18 (La.App. 2d Cir.1991), writ denied, 604 So.2d 993 (La.1992). When a police officer makes such a reference, factors which may be considered in determining whether a mistrial is warranted are whether the statement was deliberately elicited by the district attorney, whether it was responsive to the question, and whether the witness purposely uttered it to prejudice the defendant. State v. Parker, 27,417 (La.App. 2d Cir.9/27/95), 661 So.2d 603 , writ denied, 95-2576 (La.2/16/96), 667 So.2d 1049 ; State v. Williams, 26,655 (La.App. 2d Cir.3/1/95), 651 So.2d 331 , writ denied, 95-0777 (La.9/15/95), 660 So.2d 448 . Generally, ambiguous or obscure references to other crimes made without explanation or elaboration do not prejudice the defendant. State v. Williams, supra; State v. Gene, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Thus, a mistrial may be granted under LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 771 when an admonition is deemed to be insufficient to assure the defendant a fair trial. A mistrial is a drastic remedy and is warranted only when trial error results in substantial prejudice to the defendant sufficient to deprive him of a fair trial. Article 771 places the decision of whether to grant a mistrial or to admonish the jury within the sound discretion of the trial court. This decision will not be disturbed absent a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion. ( Citation omitted )”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wilson
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.