942 So. 2d 45 - State v. Legendre’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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The correct inquiry is whether the reviewing court, assuming that the damag ing potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, is nonetheless convinced that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.... Factors ■to be considered by the reviewing court include “the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of. course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 174 So. 3d 177 - State v. White · 186 So. 3d 728 - State v. Lambert

2. “The application of this exception is illustrated in State v. Hawkins, 96-0766 (La.1/14/97), 688 So.2d 473 . In that case, the investigating officer testified that an anonymous caller reported that there were three women in the vehicle with the defendant, who the caller stated was the perpetrator of the robbery and murder. The detective interviewed the women, who gave statements inculpating the defendant. They later testified at trial.... On review, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Hawkins held that the first part of the detective’s testimony regarding the tip — his testimony that the caller stated that there were several individuals in the car with the perpetrator — was relevant and not hearsay. The court stated that this testimony squarely fit within the explanatory exception, because this testimony merely explained the course of the police investigation and the steps leading to the defendant's arrest. Hawkins , 1996-0766 at p. 5, 688 So.2d at 478 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 126 So. 3d 770 - State v. Diggins

3. “The testimony of a police officer may encompass information provided by another individual without constituting hearsay, if it is offered to explain the course of the police investigation and the steps .leading to the defendant’s arrest. However, this exception does not allow the state carte blanche authority to bring before the jury the substance of the out-of-court information that would otherwise be barred by the hearsay rule.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 219 So. 3d 425 - State v. Randolph