999 So. 2d 239 - State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]n the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with physical evidence, a witness’s testimony, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient support for a requisite factual conclusion. State v. White, 28,095 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/8/96), 674 So.2d 1018 , writs denied, 96-1459 (La. 11/15/96), 682 So.2d 760 ; 98-282 (La. 6/26/98), 719 So.2d 1048 . Furthermore, regarding inconsistencies between a witness’s pre-trial statement and his trial testimony, this court explained in State v. Bender, 598 So.2d 629, 636 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 605 So.2d 1125 (La.1992): When a witness is impeached, this simply means the jury, as the trier of fact, was presented with evidence which it could consider and weigh in determining the credibility, or believability, of a witness. Simply because the witness may have been impeached by prior inconsistent statements does not mean that the jury was prohibited from believing anything said by the witness. The inconsistencies in the witness’s statements are one of any number of factors the jury weighs in determining whether or not to believe a witness’s trial testimony.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 206 So. 3d 1222 - State v. Farry

2. “| ^Information about the course of a police investigation is not relevant to any essential elements of the charged crime, but such information may be useful to the prosecutor in “drawing the full picture” for the jury. However, the fact that an officer acted on information obtained during the investigation may not be used as an indirect method of bringing before the jury the substance of the out-of-court assertions of the defendant’s guilt that would otherwise be barred by the hearsay rule. State v. Wille, 559 So.2d 1321, 1331 (La.1990); State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731, 737 (La.1992). As this Court emphasized in Hearold, 603 So.2d at 737 , Absent some unique circumstances in which the explanation of purpose is probative evidence of a contested fact, such hearsay evidence should not be admitted under an “explanation” exception. The probative value of the mere fact that an out-of-court declaration was made is generally outweighed greatly by the likelihood that the jury will consider the statement for the truth of the matter asserted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 107 So. 3d 867 - State v. Dennis

3. ““ ‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the present trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” La.Code Evid. art. 801(C). However, Louisiana jurisprudence has consistently held that investigating police officers may testify as to statements purportedly given to them, which help to explain the sequence of events that lead to an arrest and not to prove the truth of the matter. See State v. Watson, 449 So.2d 1321 (La.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1181 , 105 S.Ct. 939 , 83 L.Ed.2d 952 (1985); State v. Broadway, 96-2659 (La.10/19/99), 753 So.2d 801 , cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1056 , 120 S.Ct. 1562 , 146 L.Ed.2d 466 (2000); and State v. Blank, 04-204 (La.4/11/07), 955 So.2d 90 , cert. denied, 552 U.S. 994 , 128 S.Ct. 494 , 169 L.Ed.2d 346 (2007).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 107 So. 3d 867 - State v. Dennis