896 So. 2d 1236 - State v. Bell’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. “Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 780(A) provides in pertinent part that "[a] defendant charged with an offense other than one punishable by death may knowingly and intelligently waive a trial by jury and elect to be tried by the judge." Additionally, a defendant, with the permission of the trial judge, "may exercise his right to waive trial by jury at any time prior to the commencement of trial." La.Code Crim.P. art. 780(B). While the trial judge must determine if the defendant's jury trial waiver is knowing and intelligent, that determination does not require a Boykin -like colloquy. See State v. Frank, 549 So.2d 401 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989). As in the case of other significant rights, waiver of trial by jury is valid only if the defendant acted voluntarily and knowingly. State v. Kahey, 436 So.2d 475, 486 (La.1983); State v. Wilson, 437 So.2d 272, 275 (La.1983). While the Louisiana Supreme Court has rejected an absolute rule which would require the trial judge to personally inform the defendant of his right to a jury trial, Kahey, supra; State v. Moya, 539 So.2d 756, 758 (La.App. 3d Cir.1989), the preferred method of ensuring the right is for the trial judge to advise the defendant personally on the record of his right to a jury trial and to require the defendant to waive the right personally either in writing or by oral statement in open court on the record. State v. Wilson, 437 So.2d at 275 ; State v. Jones, 537 So.2d 1244, 1247 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989); State v. Mo”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Vallier

2. “[t]he 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. 968 So. 2d 1178 - State v. Perkins