697 So. 2d 636 - State v. Abbott’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2014
14 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 · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · 433 So. 2d 688 - State v. Smith · Deboue v. Louisiana · 433 So. 2d 104 - State v. Square
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A videotape of a child fourteen years of age or under may be offered in evidence either for or against a defendant charged with the rape or physical or sexual abuse of a child. To render such a videotape competent evidence, it must be satisfactorily proved: (1) That such electronic recording was voluntarily made by the victim of the physical or sexual abuse. (2) That no relative of the victim of the physical or sexual abuse was present in the room where the recording was made. (3) That such recording was not made of answers to interrogatories calculated to lead the child to make any particular statement. (4) That the recording is accurate, has not been altered, and reflects what the witness or victim said. (5) That the taking of the child's statement was supervised by a physician, a social worker, a law enforcement officer, a licensed psychologist, a licensed professional counselor, or an authorized representative of the Department of Social Services. (Emphasis added.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carper · State v. Guerra“A. The videotape of an oral statement of the protected person made before the proceeding begins may be admissible into evidence if: (1) No attorney for either party was present when the statement was made; (2) The recording is both visual and oral and is recorded on film or videotape or by other electronic means; (3) The recording is accurate, has not been altered and reflects what the witness or victim said; (4) The statement was not made in response to questioning calculated to lead the protected person to make a particular statement; (5) Every voice on the recording is identified; (6) The person conducting or supervising the interview of the protected person in the recording is present at the proceeding and available to testify or be cross-examined by either party; (7) The defendant or the attorney for the defendant is afforded an opportunity to view the recording before it is offered into evidence; and (8) The protected person is available to testify. B. The admission into evidence of the videotape of a protected person as authorized herein shall not preclude the prosecution from calling the protected person as a witness or from taking the protected person's testimony outside of the courtroom as authorized in R.S. 15:283. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prohibit the defendant's right of confrontation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.”
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.