775 So. 2d 622 - State v. Guss’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To be admissible, demonstrative evidence must be identified and authenticated. La. C.E. art. 901. As a foundation for admitting demonstrative evidence, it must be established that the object sought to be introduced is more probably than not connected with the case. State v. Tatum, 506 So.2d 584, 589 (La.App. 4 Cir.1987); State v. Matthews, 95-1245 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/21/96) , 679 So.2d 977, 984 , writ denied, 96-2332 (La.1/31/97), 687 So.2d 403 . A lack of positive identification of demonstrative evidence or its chain of custody goes to the weight of the evidence, not to its admissibility, and the connection of that evidence to the case is a factual matter to be determined by the trier of fact. State v. Lewis, 452 So.2d 720, 726 (La.App. 4 Cir.1984), vacated in part, 457 So.2d 1187 (La.1984).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 788 So. 2d 1215 - State v. Tapp

2. “The purpose of cross-examination of a defense character witness, is to expose the witness's possible lack of knowledge regarding the character of the defendant. State v. Bagley , 378 So.2d 1356 , 1358 (La.1979). Cross-examination may properly extend to the witness's knowledge of particular misconduct, prior arrests, or other acts relevant to moral qualities pertinent to the defendant's crime. State v. Rault , 445 So.2d 1203 , 1209 (La.1984), cert. denied, Rault v. Louisiana , 469 U.S. 873 , 105 S.Ct. 225 , 83 L.Ed.2d 154 (1984). Id. at 627.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 241 So. 3d 1060 - State v. Stafford