State v. Coleman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although a subsidiary purpose of Dr. Coffman's evaluation was to identify and treat any sexually transmitted diseases or other physical harm that may have resulted from rape, the principal reason for the examination was forensic. [The victim] was referred to Dr. Coffman by the District Attorney eighteen months after the rape was alleged to have occurred.... The report of the examination was provided only to the District Attorney. [The victim] received no treatment as a result of [this] evaluation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 781 So. 2d 73 - State v. Harris · 752 So. 2d 934 - State v. Lawrence

2. “evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect. State v. Kahey, 436 So.2d 475 (La.1983); State v. Wright, 94-682 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/18/95) , 650 So.2d 291 , writ denied, 96-0855 (La.9/20/96), 679 So.2d 430 . When a defendant denies the sex offense with which he is charged occurred at all, prior sex offenses are relevant to show motive, which the jurisprudence often calls”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 722 So. 2d 1107 - State v. Cangelosi

3. “The use of hearsay history of the case as told to the physician by the patient may be admissible if received not to show the truth of the facts stated but only the basis for his opinion, but all hearsay history not necessary to this diagnosis is inadmissible.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Merritt