State v. Hattaway’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[u]pon motion of a defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered, and in a jury case the jury dismissed, when prejudicial conduct in or outside the courtroom makes it impossible for the defendant to obtain a fair trial ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Carper · State v. Scott

2. “By this assignment, Hattaway contends the trial court erred in not allowing him to question Raymond Heck on cross examination about the victim, Slade's, marriage. Specifically, defense counsel asked if Heck knew whether or not Slade had marital problems. The state's objection on relevancy grounds was sustained. On appeal, Hattaway argues that this denied him his constitutional right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment and La. Const. art. 1, § 16. Cross examination, the primary means by which the believability and truthfulness of a witness are tested, is the essential purpose of confrontation. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); State v. Mosby, 595 So.2d 1135 (La. 1992); State v. Hillard, 398 So.2d 1057 (La.1981), [ after remand, 421 So.2d 220 (La.1982)]. However, its scope is not without limit. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant. Relevant evidence is that: having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. La.C.E. art. 401. The trial court has discretion to determine relevancy, and thus the scope and extent of cross examination. State v. Lard, 568 So.2d 629 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1990). Its decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Id. By questioning Heck about disharmony in Slade's marriage, defense counsel sought to demonstrate that Slade's wife had a motiv”

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

3. “C. Leading questions. Generally, leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop his testimony and in examining an expert witness on his opinions and inferences. However, when a party calls a hostile witness, a witness who is unable or unwilling to respond to proper questioning, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions. Generally, leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. However, the court ordinarily shall prohibit counsel for a party from using leading questions when that party or a person identified with him is examined by his counsel, even when the party or a person identified with him has been called as a witness by another party and tendered for cross-examination.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 877 So. 2d 1027 - State v. Moore