79 So. 3d 1108 - State v. Ventris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “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: * * * (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.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gray · 263 So. 3d 483 - State v. Blackwell

2. “Even when the other crimes evidence is offered for a purpose allowed under Article 404,, the evidence is not admissible unless it tends to prove a material fact at issue or to rebut a defense. The probative value of the extraneous crimes evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect. See La. C.E. art. 403; [State v.] Jacobs, [99-991 (La.5/15/01), 803 So.2d 933 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1087 , 122 S.Ct. 826 , 151 L.Ed.2d 707 (2002) ] supra. The underlying policy is not to prevent prejudice, since evidence of other crimes is always prejudicial, but to protect against unfair prejudice when the evidence is only marginally relevant to the determination of guilt of the charged crime. State v. Williams, 02-645 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/26/02) , 833 So.2d 497, 507 , writ denied, 02-3182 (La.4/25/03), 842 So.2d 398 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 124 So. 3d 1275 - State v. Raines

3. “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 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: [[Image here]] (2) WZhen the remark or comment is made by a witness or person other than a 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. J.M.