Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 719 SO2D 536 - State v. August

State v. August’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 2015

7 state decisions

40199820002010decided

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 · Chapman v. State of California · Sullivan v. Louisiana · State v. Jacobs · 446 So. 2d 729 - State v. Prudholm

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

  1. “La.C.Cr.P. article 704 provides that “[jjointly indicted defendants shall be tried jointly unless ... [t]he state elects to try them separately; or ... [t]he court, on motion of the defendants, and after contradictory motion with the district attorney, is satisfied that justice requires a severance.” Whether to grant or deny a severance is within the trial court’s sound discretion and will not be disturbed absent clear abuse. State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729, 741 (La.1984). The standard for a pre-trial severance is broader because of speculation as to what the evidence will be, whereas the standard for severance after trial commences is stricter because the judge can examine the evidence. State v. Fleming, 574 So.2d 486, 492 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991), writ denied, 592 So.2d 1313 (La.1992). Under the “antagonistic defenses” test a severance is mandated when each defendant intends to blame the other, and a joint trial would require the defendants to defend against the state and each other. State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d at 741 ; See La. C.Cr.P. art. 704, comment (c). When each confession or statement involves both defendants as principals and only the extent of participation is contradictory, the defenses are not antagonistic and the degree of blame each defendant seeks to cast on the other does not warrant a severance. State v. Williams, 416 So.2d 914, 916 (La.1982); State v. Simmons, 381 So.2d 803, 806 (La.1980), cert denied, Simmons v. Louisiana, 449 U.S. 1036 , 101 S.Ct. 612 , 6”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “A. Armed robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, while armed with a dangerous weapon. (Emphasis added).”
    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.