660 So. 2d 529 - State v. Huff’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently September 2013
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 · 603 So. 2d 731 - State v. Hearold · State v. Jacobs · 446 So. 2d 729 - State v. Prudholm · 622 So. 2d 198 - State v. Bourque
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 Huffs complain of the court's limitation of their cross-examination of a witness by not allowing them to question why the witness was late to court.... The defendants wished to cross-examine him about the reason for his tardiness in order to discredit his ability to remember specific details. The trial court stated that it believed the prejudicial effect of such testimony would outweigh the probative value, and that it `would interfere with getting at the truth of what [the witness] saw the night [of the murder].' The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses so as to make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of truth. LCE Art. 611A(1). A witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility. LCE Art. 611B. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. LCE Art. 403. The defendants had ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness and to attack his credibility concerning his ability to remember and to recall relevant past events without delving into his reason for being late on the second day of his testimony. The defendants have not shown how they were prejudiced by the trial court's limitation. We deem the trial court's error, if any is assumed, was harmless.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Photographs which illustrate any fact or issue in the case, or are relevant to describe the person, place or thing depicted, are generally admissible. LCE Art. 401; [ State v. ] Stokes [26,003 (La.App. 2d Cir. 6/22/94), 639 So.2d 395 , writ denied, 94-1880 (La. 11/11/94), 644 So.2d 387 ]. Autopsy photographs are admissible to corroborate other evidence establishing the cause of death, the manner in which the death occurred, and the location, severity, and number of the wounds. State v. Bourque, 622 So.2d 198 (La.1993); State v. Harvey, 26,613 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1/25/95), 649 So.2d 783 . Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. LCE Art. 403. The test for admissibility of gruesome photographs is whether the prejudicial effect of the photographs clearly outweighs their probative value. Bourque, supra ; Harvey, supra .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wilson“Photographs which illustrate any fact or issue in the case, or are relevant to describe the person, place or thing depicted, are generally admissible. Autopsy photographs are admissible to corroborate other evidence establishing the cause of death, the manner in which the death occurred, and the location, severity, and number of the wounds.”
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.