State v. Eskano’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If there is testimony of flight after the crime was committed and the jury charge regarding flight is brief when considered in connection with the remainder of the charge, the instruction is neither erroneous nor prejudicial. State v. Bell, 97-896 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/14/98) , 721 So.2d 38, 41 (citing State v. Walker, 93-632 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/31/95) , 650 So.2d 363 , writ denied, 95-0545 (La.6/23/95), 656 So.2d 1013 ). An erroneous jury instruction is subject to harmless error review. State v. Jynes, 94-745 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/1/95) , 652 So.2d 91, 98 . The appropriate standard for determining harmless error is "`not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in the instant trial was surely unattributable to the error.'" State v. James, 95-566 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/28/95) , 665 So.2d 581, 584 (citing Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 864 So. 2d 811 - State v. Smith

2. “In the following cases, upon the request of the defendant or the state, the court shall promptly admonish the jury to disregard a remark or comment made during the trial, or in argument within the hearing of the jury, when the remark is irrelevant or immaterial and of such a nature that it might create prejudice against the defendant, or the state, in the mind of the jury: (1) When the remark or comment is made by the judge, the district attorney, or a court official, and the remark is not within the scope of Article 770; or (2) When the remark or comment is made by a witness or person other than the judge, district attorney, or a court official, regardless of whether the remark or comment is within the scope of Article 770. In such cases, on motion of the defendant, the court may grant a mistrial if it is satisfied that an admonition is not sufficient to assure the defendant a fair trial.”

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

3. “Upon motion of a defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered when a remark or comment, made within the hearing of the jury by the judge, district attorney, or a court official, during the trial, or in argument, refers directly or indirectly to: . . . . (2) Another crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible; . . . . An admonition to the jury shall not be sufficient to prevent a mistrial. If the defendant, however, requests that only an admonition be given, the court shall admonish the jury to disregard the remark or comment but shall not declare a mistrial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 803 So. 2d 212 - State v. Sarrio