780 So. 2d 1152 - State v. Porche’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To grant or refuse to grant a motion for continuance rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Martin, 93-0285 (La.10/17/94); 645 So.2d 190 . A ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion, and a showing of specific prejudice caused by that denial. State v. Benoit, 440 So.2d 129 (La.1983). When a motion to continue is based upon a claim of inadequate time to prepare a defense, the specific prejudice requirement has been disregarded only when the time has been “so minimal as to call into question the basic fairness of the proceeding.” State v. Jones, 395 So.2d 751, 753 (La.1981). The reasonableness of discretion issue turns upon the circumstances of the particular case. State v. Simpson, 403 So.2d 1214 (La.1981). The appellant claims that the denial of the continuance resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel. Generally, the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is a matter more properly addressed in an application for post conviction relief, filed in the trial court where a |1sfull evidentiary hearing can be conducted. State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729 (La.1984); State v. Reed, 483 So.2d 1278 (La.App. 4 Cir.1986).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 80 So. 3d 593 - State v. Ware

2. “In Laugand , the court noted instances in the transcript which indicated that defense counsel’s general lack of preparation affected the appellant’s ability to present an adequate defense. In the instant case, the appellant does not argue that counsel was generally unprepared for trial. Rather, he argues that counsel was unprepared due to his failure to timely receive a particular transcript and the 911 tape. The subject transcript was limited to the admission of the identification, which the appellant does not assign as error. Despite hearing the 911 tape for the first time on the day of trial, defense counsel competently cross-examined the victim relative to discrepancies between her statements on the tape and her trial testimony.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 94 So. 3d 847 - State ex rel. J.T.