State v. Pinion’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]n State v. Landry, 97-0499 (La.6/29/99), 751 So.2d 214 , a combination of loud construction noise at the courthouse and audio recording problems on the part of the court reporter rendered the record grossly incomplete in several respects, including the failure to record peremptory strikes and challenges for cause made at the bench. Landry , 97-0499 at 1-2, 751 So.2d at 215 . This Court reversed the defendant’s capital conviction and sentence and remanded for a new trial because the deficiencies deprived the defendant of his constitutional right of appeal and judicial review. Landry , 97-0499 at 4, 751 So.2d at 216 . The Court thereby reaffirmed that “it is not the defendant’s obligation to insure an adequate record. ... it is the duty of the court.... to see that the court reporter makes a true, complete and accurate record of the trial.” Landry , 97-0499 at 3, 751 So.2d at 216 (citing American Bar Association Standards Relating to the Function of the Trial Judge, § 2.5 (1972)). |4In the present case, the trial court and not defense counsel had the duty to insure that the bench conferences involving jury selection were properly recorded because La.C.Cr.P. art. 795(B)(2) required that counsel for the state and defense exercise their peremptory challenges in side bar conferences out of the hearing of jurors, and further required that the court refrain from attributing the strikes to either side on the record when excusing the jurors. Counsel therefore could reasonably assume”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sinegal · 157 So. 3d 1284 - State ex rel. J.C.R.

2. “An irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence. A bill of exceptions to rulings or orders is unnecessary. It is sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order of the court is made or sought, makes known to the court the action which he desires the court to take, or of his objections to the action of the court, and the grounds therefor [sic].”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Record · State v. Franklin

3. “In this particular instance, by operation of art. 795(B)(2) [requiring that peremptory challenges be exercised in side bar conferences out of the hearing of jurors], bench conferences are a material part of the proceedings for purposes of La. C.Cr.P. art. 843 and their omission from the present case, given the reasonable likelihood that counsel exhausted his peremptory challenges, the uncertainty with respect to how many cause challenges the defense made unsuccessfully, and the 11Rabsence of other contemporaneous records accounting for the selection process, e.g., adequate minutes or jury strike sheets, requires reversal of defendant’s conviction and sentence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 171 So. 3d 959 - State v. Thomas · 977 So. 2d 160 - State v. Williams