612 So. 2d 266 - State v. Clay’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 2018
9 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 428 So. 2d 449 - State v. Burkhalter · 541 So. 2d 818 - State v. Johnson · State v. Miles · State v. Michel · 388 So. 2d 713 - State v. Baylis
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“La.C.Cr.P. article 770 is clear that, Upon motion of a defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered when a remark or comment, made within the hearing of the jury by the judge, district attorney, or a court official, during the trial or in argument, refers directly or indirectly to: ... (3) the failure of the defendant to testify in his own defense. La.C.Cr.P. art. 770(3). Furthermore, an admonition to the jury is not sufficient to prevent a mistrial. Once a determination has been made that a La. C.Cr.P. art. 770 violation occurred, the trial court must declare a mistrial. 1 When |3the prosecutor makes a direct reference to the defendant’s failure to take the stand, a mistrial shall be declared and “it is irrelevant whether the prosecutor intended for the jury to draw unfavorable inferences from defendant’s silence.” State v. Fullilove, 389 So.2d 1282, 1284 (La.1980). However, the State’s comments in this case did not directly refer to the fact that the defendant failed to testify. In order for an indirect reference to mandate a mistrial, the State must have intended to draw the jury’s attention to the defendant’s failure to testify. State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449 (La.1983); State v. Davis, 471 So.2d 310 (La.App. 4th Cir.1985). Our Louisiana Supreme Court has held with regard to such indirect comments that a reviewing court must “inquire into the remark’s ‘intended effect on the jury in order to distinguish indirect references to the defendant’s failure to testify (which are imp”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he prosecutor, especially in a case where the defense calls no witnesses nor puts on any evidence, may comment on the fact that the prosecution's case is unrebutted.”
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.