665 So. 2d 596 - State v. Francis’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably 750 So. 2d 1036 - State v. Hotoph (1999), 708 So. 2d 1212 - State v. McCorkle (1998)
32 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 · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · 448 So. 2d 676 - State v. Captville · 441 So. 2d 732 - State v. Lynch · State v. Richardson
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The issue as to the propriety of remarks made in closing argument is not preserved for review where defense counsel makes no objection to the statement either during argument or after the argument. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 841; State v. Burge, 515 So.2d 494 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987); writ denied, 532 So.2d 112 (La.1988). This lack of a contemporaneous objection by the defendant prevented the trial court from immediately remedying the situation, had corrective action been required. State v. Spencer, 93-571 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/25/94) , 631 So.2d 1363 , writ denied, 94-0488 (La.2/3/95), 649 So.2d 400 . In addition, there was no request for an admonition or a mistrial. Absent such an objection, defendant can be deemed to have waived any such error, and is now precluded from raising these issues on appeal. State v. Spencer, supra ; State v. Burge, supra . We are aware that, despite the lack of an objection, extremely prejudicial and inflammatory remarks require reversal. State v. Hayes, 364 So.2d 923 (La.1978). However, after reviewing the closing argument of the prosecutor, we do not find any of the remarks so inflammatory or prejudicial as to require reversal."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The argument shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law applicable to the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(I)t is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(13) which is a felony, ... to possess a firearm or carry a concealed weapon.”
2 later decisions 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.