587 So. 2d 46 - State v. Moseley’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 2016
23 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 · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Rideout v. United States · Murphy v. Florida · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... the defendant, during cross-examination of Detective Padgett, engaged in additional questioning regarding Widenhouse's statement. This further `opened the door' on this issue and entitled the state to more fully explore this area on redirect examination. See State v. Smith, 513 So.2d 438 (La.App.2d Cir.1987); State v. Kelly, 456 So.2d 642 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1984), writ denied, 461 So.2d 312 (La.1984). The trial court therefore correctly overruled the defendant's hearsay objection during the state's redirect examination of Detective Padgett. "... any references to Widenhouse's statements during the defendant's testimony were merely cumulative of the evidence of Widenhouse's statement which the jury had heard during Detective Padgett's testimony. Even if this was hearsay, inadmissible hearsay which is merely cumulative or corroborative of other testimony adduced a trial is considered harmless. State v. Spell, 399 So.2d 551 (La.1981); State v. McIntyre, 381 So.2d 408 (La.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 871 , 101 S.Ct. 209 , 66 L.Ed.2d 90 (1980)."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[W]e conclude that defendant did not meet his burden of proving that there existed such prejudice in the collective mind of the community that a fair trial was impossible. The newspaper articles and other media coverage were neither so extensive nor so inflammatory as to entitle a defendant to a change of venue. Moreover, we note that, as a cautionary measure, the trial judge had the voir dire of prospective jurors conducted in panels of six or fewer so as to carefully screen for prejudicial exposure to publicity surrounding the case. Hence, the trial judge did not err in denying the motions to change venue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hundley“... the defendant, during cross-examination of Detective Padgett, engaged in additional questioning regarding Widenhouse's statement. This further `opened the door' on this issue and entitled the state to more fully explore this area on redirect examination. See State v. Smith, 513 So.2d 438 (La.App.2d Cir.1987); State v. Kelly, 456 So.2d 642 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1984), writ denied, 461 So.2d 312 (La.1984). The trial court therefore correctly overruled the defendant's hearsay objection during the state's redirect examination of Detective Padgett.”
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.