Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 734 So. 2d 685 - State v. Asprilla

734 So. 2d 685 - State v. Asprilla’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
October 1999
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 371 So. 2d 733 - State v. Simpson · State v. Joseph

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

  1. “The effect of the articles [La. Code Crim.P. arts. 775 and 591] taken together is as follows: (1) Mistrials, without the consent of the defendant, are permitted under certain limited circumstances such as | smability of the jury to agree, physical impossibility to proceed, etc. (2) All other dismissals of the jury prior to verdict without the defendant’s consent will not be mistrials at all, even though the court may so label them, but will be illegal dismissals, and in such cases the principles of double jeopardy will come into operation. By ordering a mistrial that was not in compliance with Article 775 and was without the defendant’s consent, the trial judge impermissibly deprived the defendant of his right to have his trial completed by the jury before which he had been placed in jeopardy. Article 592 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure states in part that “[w]hen a defendant pleads not guilty and is tried by jury, jeopardy begins when the jury panel is sworn pursuant to Article 790.””
    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.