State v. Burks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the present case, the evidence shows that the multiple counts, although perpetrated upon different victims and at different times, occurred under strikingly similar circumstances. Consequently, we find that the counts are of the same or similar character as contemplated by La.C.Cr.P. art. 493 and were, therefore, properly charged in the same bill of indictment. We further fail to find that defendant has failed to meet the heavy burden of proving he was prejudiced by the joinder of these offenses. The evidence presented by the State through the testimony of the victims was clear and consistent, and it is highly improbable that the jury was confused by the multiple counts involving the three victims.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 27 So. 3d 904 - State v. Fontenberry

2. “If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses in an indictment or bill of information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order separate trials, grant a severance of offenses, or provide whatever other relief justice requires.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 33 So. 3d 306 - State v. Jones

3. “[a]nother crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible[:]”

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