State v. Peloquin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]t is well established jurisprudence in Louisiana that inadmissible other-crimes evidence is subject to a harmless error analysis. In State v. Peloquin , 04-667, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/17/04), 888 So.2d 393 , 397, writ denied , 04-3170 (La. 4/8/05), 898 So.2d 1280 , this court discussed harmless error in the context of inadmissible other-crimes evidence, as follows: In State v. Johnson , 94-1379 (La. 11/27/95), 664 So.2d 94 , the trial court erroneously admitted other crimes evidence introduced by the State to attack the credibility of the defendant under La.Code Evid. art. 609.1. In Johnson , the supreme court held "that the introduction of inadmissible other crimes evidence results in a trial error subject to harmless error analysis." Id. at 102 . In its ruling, the supreme court set out the following regarding the harmless error analysis: The history of Louisiana's harmless error rule makes clear that there has been one common directive: appellate courts should not reverse convictions for errors unless the accused's substantial rights have been violated. This comports with the general theory that "appeals in criminal cases are not granted merely to test the correctness of the trial court's ruling, but only to rectify injuries caused thereby." State v. Saia , 212 La. 868 , 876, 33 So.2d 665 , 668 (1947), citing State v. Cullens , 168 La. 976 , 123 So. 645 , 648 (1929). This Court adopted the federal test for harmless error announced in Chapman v. California , 386 U.S.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Guidry · 127 So. 3d 1070 - State v. Barnes

2. “In Gaspard, we reviewed State v. Louviere, 602 So.2d 1042 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992), 'writ denied, 610 So.2d 796 (La.1993), where the appellate court reversed the defendant’s conviction for attempted indecent behavior with a juvenile. In Louviere , our colleagues noted that it would be difficult for a rational trier of fact to conclude that testimony concerning a “bad kiss” proved the occurrence of a lewd and lascivious act. Additionally, there was no indication that any other act was planned. The fourth circuit concluded that without genital contact or any other obscene or indecent act or repeated occurrence, the kiss fell short of the statutory requirements of the crime and reversed the defendant’s conviction. After reviewing Louviere , we found, in Gaspard, that the act at issue was not one contemplated by La. R.S. 14:81. We concluded that assuming there was an act, there was no evidence the defendant did anything upon the person of his son and he did not participate in any lewd acts in the presence of his son. Accordingly, we reversed the defendant’s conviction. The acts of Defendant involving B.P. did not constitute an attempted indecent behavior with a juvenile. B.P. did not testify how old she was when Defendant posed this question to her and the State asserted, in argument to the court, that B.P. was seventeen years old. Accordingly, La. R.S. 14:81 would not be applicable to her. The statute 15would, however, be applicable to K.P. inasmuch as the State alleged she was four”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 32 So. 3d 1084 - State v. Jones

3. “the intentional engaging in any of the following acts with another person where the offender acts without the consent of the victim, or where the act is consensual but the other person, who is not the spouse of the offender, has not yet attained fifteen years of age and is at least three years younger than the offender: (1) The touching of the anus or genitals of the victim by the offender using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the offender.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 921 So. 2d 79 - State v. Trackling