968 So. 2d 1102 - State v. Galindo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The strongest support for the appellant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient was the admissions of M.M. and E.M. that, on the day before the trial, they told the prosecutors that the defendant had never blown a raspberry on E.M.’s butt. The girls then indicated at trial that he had. However, the girls were questioned at length about the discrepancies in their statements to the prosecutors and their trial testimony. The jury was able to observe the demeanor of the girls, as well as view the videotaped statement which E.M. had given, and apparently found her credible. Contrary to the appellant’s argument, the victim’s testimony was not so suspect as to render it invalid. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the jury could legitimately find beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the crime of sexual battery.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 32 So. 3d 993 - State v. James

2. “A defendant may not complain of technical insufficiency in an indictment for the first time after conviction, when the indictment fairly informed the accused of the charge against him and the defendant is not prejudiced by the defect. State v. Michels, 98-608 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/13/99) , 726 So.2d 449 . The omission of an essential fact does not necessarily create a prejudicial error because such facts can be supplied during discovery, by a bill of particulars. State v. Allen, supra. For these reasons, after the verdict a defendant ordinarily cannot complain of the insufficiency of a Bill of Information “unless it is so defective that it does not set forth an identifiable offense against the laws of this state and inform the defendant of the statutory basis of the offense.” State v. Allen, 793 So.2d 426, 434 . [Emphasis added.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 116 So. 3d 863 - State v. Burton

3. “The fact finder’s discretion will be impinged upon only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law. [State v.] Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305 [ (La.1988)]; [State v.] Green, 588 So.2d 757 [ (La.App. 4 Cir.1991) ]. “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” State v. Smith, 600 So.2d 1319, 1324 (La.1992). A factfinder’s credibility decision should not be disturbed unless it is clearly contrary to the evidence. State v. Huckabay, 2000-1082 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/6/02) , 809 So.2d 1093 [, writ denied, 02-703 (La.11/1/02), 828 So.2d 564 ]; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/31/00) , 765 So.2d 432 [, writ denied, 00-1946 (La.9/21/01), 797 So.2d 60 ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 64 So. 3d 448 - State v. A.D.L.