856 So. 2d 166 - State v. Chesson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In considering questions of sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court must consider the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the prosecution and consider whether a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the essential elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The reviewing court defers to rational credibility and evidentiary determinations of the trier of fact. State v. Marcantel, 00-1629 (La.4/3/02), 815 So.2d 50 .”

   15 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 160 So. 3d 609 - State v. Fontenot · 880 So. 2d 43 - State v. Sweet

2. “| gpHowever, even the erroneous admission of irrelevant evidence does not require a reversal of a conviction if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Wille, 559 So.2d 1321 (La.1990), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 880 , 113 S.Ct. 231 , 121 L.Ed.2d 167 (1992), citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). In Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993), the United States Supreme Court explained that: Harmless-error review looks ... to the basis on which “the jury actually rested its verdict.” Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391, 404 , 111 S.Ct. 1884, 1893 , 114 L.Ed.2d 432 (1991)(emphasis added). The inquiry, in other words, 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 this trial was surely unattributable to the error.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 127 So. 3d 76 - State v. Hamilton · 74 So. 3d 1216 - State v. Elie

3. “[t]he defendant's statement regarding his 'thinking' that he possibly 'should' speak with an attorney is not the type of unequivocal and unambiguous statement described above [in Davis ].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Anderson · 955 So. 2d 742 - State v. Allen