903 So. 2d 1275 - State v. Hypolite’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As mentioned in Kennerson , credibility assessments are within the province of the fact-finder, in this case the jury. A jury may "accept or reject, in whole or in part," any witness's testimony. State v. Silman, 95-0154, p. 12 (La.11/27/95), 663 So.2d 27, 28 . Clearly, the jury believed the victim's version of events, and Hypolite's brief offers no concrete reason why the jury's conclusion should be considered unreasonable. This court will overturn a jury's credibility assessment only when a witness's own testimony demonstrates that the witness's ability to perceive events was impaired in some way. See, e.g., State v. Bourque, 94-291 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/94) , 649 So.2d 670 , wherein one eyewitness had consumed a large amount of alcohol before the offense and the other was a minor who believed all white men looked alike, and defendant was white. In the present case, there was no indication that Ms. Chatman was unable to objectively perceive events, although during cross-examination she testified that she had consumed two twenty-two-ounce beers while visiting her friend's house earlier in the evening. It was not clear exactly when, or over what a period, she drank the beers. The testimony did not indicate that she was intoxicated, or otherwise unable to objectively perceive events, at the time of the offense.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 157 So. 3d 695 - State v. Kato · State v. Smith

2. “[5] was not held until the State was about to call its final witness in its case-in-chief. In proceedings conducted outside the presence of the jury, the court questioned Hypolite with regard to his ability to represent himself. Upon being asked by the court whether he understood that he did not know how to try a case, Hypolite responded that it”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brown · 930 So. 2d 265 - State v. Pitree

3. “If there is more than one count in an indictment, the jury must find a verdict as to each count, unless it cannot agree on a verdict as to a count.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 247 So. 3d 766 - State v. Manuel · 926 So. 2d 744 - State v. Francois