800 So. 2d 427 - State v. Laird’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The standard of review applicable to a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence has been set forth as follows: A defendant seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence must establish four elements: (1) that the new evidence was discovered after trial; (2) that failure to discover the evidence before trial was not attributable to his lack of diligence; (3) that the evidence is material to the issues at the trial; and (4) that the evidence is of such a nature that it would probably produce a different verdict in the event of retrial. State v. Hammons, 597 So.2d 990, 994 (La.1992); State v. Knapper, 555 So.2d 1335, 1339 (La. 1990); State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729, 735 (La.1984). In ruling on the motion, "[t]he trial judge's duty is not to weigh the evidence as though he were a jury determining guilt or innocence, rather his duty is the narrow one of ascertaining whether there is new material fit for a new jury's judgment." Prudholm, 446 So.2d at 736 . State v. Cavalier, 96-3052, 97-0103, p. 3 (La.10/31/97), 701 So.2d 949, 951 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 846 So. 2d 1 - State v. Taves

2. “After suspending the defendant’s sentences with the exception of the one- year mandatory incarceration penalty, the trial court placed the defendant on four years supervised probation. It is not clear whether the supervised probation period applied to all three or merely one or two of the suspended sentences. Thus, the defendant’s sentences are indeterminate and contrary to La.Code Crim.P. art. 879. While appearing insignificant at first glance, the manner in which the probation period affects each individual sentence becomes important in the event of a probation violation. After determining which sentences are subject to supervised probation, the trial court must also determine whether the probation [2periods are to run consecutive or concurrent, and must determine at what point the probated sentences are to begin on each count. La. Code Crim.P. art. 883; State v. Bradley, 99-364 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/3/99) , 746 So.2d 263 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 829 So. 2d 1098 - State v. Laird

3. “(2) The court's ruling on a written motion, or an objection made during the proceedings, shows prejudicial error; (3) New and material evidence that, notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the defendant, was not discovered before or during the trial, is available, and if the evidence had been introduced at the trial it would probably have changed the verdict or judgment of guilty; (4) The defendant has discovered, since the verdict or judgment of guilty, a prejudicial error or defect in the proceedings that, notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the defendant, was not discovered before the verdict or judgment; or (5) The court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served by the granting of a new trial, although the defendant may not be entitled to a new trial as a matter of strict legal right.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 846 So. 2d 1 - State v. Taves