901 So. 2d 428 - State v. Pitre’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In this case, defense counsel argues that he did not have a fair opportunity to prepare for cross-examination or to locate other witnesses who might have overheard the alleged incriminatory statement and impeached Ms. Rogers’ testimony. He further complained at trial that he would not be able to question the detective who took her initial statement before cross-examination of Pamela Rogers. Finally, he argued that he would not have time to file a motion to suppress her. testimony or to investigate whether she might have an ulterior motive for testifying against the defendant. He asked the trial judge to exclude her testimony or delay her taking the stand until the next day. 122After a thorough review of the record, we are not persuaded that the failure of the trial judge to grant defendant’s alternative requests justifies a reversal of the defendant’s conviction under the particular circumstances presented here. In our view, the State complied with both the letter and the spirit of the law. Full good-faith pretrial discovery was provided prior to trial. The State was obviously aware it had a continuing duty to supplement discovery and, as soon as the prosecution learned of Rogers’ new information, it notified defendant prior to the State s opening statement. In our view, the trial judge did not err in refusing to exclude this testimony. Moreover, although he did not exclude the highly relevant testimony, the trial judge went to great lengths to avoid any undue prejudice to th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 59 So. 3d 463 - State v. Sepulvado

2. “The rules of discovery are intended to eliminate unwarranted prejudice arising from surprise testimony, to permit the defense to meet the State’s case, and to allow proper assessment of the strength of its evidence in preparing a defense. However, the failure of the State to comply with discovery rules does not bring automatic reversal; rather, prejudice must be shown. State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 9 (La.11/30/94), 648 So.2d 1272, 1281 , cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1246 , 116 S.Ct. 2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996); State v. Schrader, 518 So.2d 1024, 1032 (La.1988). When the defendant is lulled into misapprehension of the strength, of the State’s case through the failure of the prosecution to timely or fully disclose and the defendant suffers prejudice, basic unfairness results which constitutes reversible error. State v. Mitchell, 412 So.2d 1042, 1044 (La.1982). Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 729.5 |gfldetails the arsenal of sanctions available for discovery violations. Even where a violation is clear, no particular remedy is mandated.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 59 So. 3d 463 - State v. Sepulvado

3. “When a defendant is tried upon a plea of `not guilty', evidence of insanity or mental defect at the time of the offense shall not be admissible.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 11 So. 3d 1246 - State v. Breaux