771 So. 2d 131 - State v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “|2A criminal defendant has the fundamental right to have a jury determine whether he may be guilty or innocent; whether the state proved all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. La. Const. art. I, § 17; State v. Lacoste, 256 La. 697 , 237 So.2d 871 (1970). Nevertheless, this fundamental right would become meaningless if not guided by the principle that the jury should be impartial in order to ensure that the criminal defendant receives a fair trial. This principle does not mean that a criminal defendant has the right to be tried by a particular type of jury or juror, but it simply means that it is essential that the jury be impartial and competent. State v. McLean, 211 La. 413 , 30 So.2d 187 (1947); State v. Lewis, 98-904 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/9/98) ; 724 So.2d 830 , writ denied, 99-0438 (La.11/12/99); 749 So.2d 649 . To ensure that the jury is competent and impartial, La. Const. art. I, § 17 provides safeguards, such as the defendant’s “right to full voir dire examination of prospective jurors and to challenge jurors peremptorily.” The purpose of voir dire is to test the competency and impartiality of prospective jurors to determine whether they are fit to serve on the jury. Voir dire is designed to uncover information about the prospective jurors, which may be used as a basis for challenges for cause or exercise of peremptory challenges. State v. Berry, 95-1610 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/8/96) ; 684 So.2d 439 , writ denied, 97-0278 (La.10/10/97); 703 So.2d 603 . When a def”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 127 So. 3d 1034 - State v. Segura · 181 So. 3d 223 - State v. Noel

2. “The prior denial of supervisory writs does not bar reconsideration of an issue on appeal, nor does it prevent the appellate panel from reaching a different conclusion. State v. Fontenot, 550 So.2d 179 (La.1989); State v. Decuir, 599 So.2d 358 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1992), writ denied, 605 So.2d 1095 (La.1992). When a defendant does not present any additional evidence on this issue after the pre-trial ruling, the issue can be rejected on appeal. See, e.g., State v. Regan, 601 So.2d 5 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1992), unit denied, 610 So.2d 815 (La.1993); State v. Wright, 564 So.2d 1269 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989). Judicial efficiency demands that this court accord great deference to its pre-trial decision unless it is apparent that the determination was patently erroneous and produced unjust results. State v. Decuir, supra, at 360.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 32 So. 3d 852 - State v. Plauche · 932 So. 2d 736 - State v. Surratt

3. “The trial judge is vested with broad discretion in ruling on challenges for cause, and his ruling will be reversed only when a review of the entire voir dire reveals the judge abused his discre tion. State v. Robertson, 630 So.2d 1278 . “A trial judge’s refusal to excuse a prospective juror for cause is not an abuse of discretion, notwithstanding that the juror has voiced an opinion seemingly prejudicial to the defense, where subsequently, on further inquiry or instruction, [the juror] has demonstrated a willingness and ability to decide the case impartially h?,according to the law and the evidence.” [State v.] Cross, 658 So.2d at 687.”

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