State v. Guess’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Intoxication is a defense when the circumstances indicate that the intoxicated or drugged condition precluded the presence of a specific criminal intént or of special knowledge required in a particular crime. La. R.S. 14:15(2). Intoxication is an affirmative defense that must be proved by the-defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Hall, 43,920 (La.App.2d Cir. 2/25/09), 4 So.3d 295 , writ denied, 2009-0691 (La. 12/11/09), 23 So.3d 911 ; State v. Tolbird, 28,986 (La.App.2d Cir. 12/11/96), 685 So.2d 415 . If the defendant proves he was intoxicated at the time of the offense, the burden is on the state to negate that defense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Hall, supra. The jury is the ultimate factfinder of whether a defendant proved his intoxicated condition and whether the state negated the defense. State v. Legrand, 2002-1462 (La. 12/3/03), 864 So.2d 89 , cert. denied, 544 U.S. 947 , 125 S.Ct. 1692 , 161 L.Ed.2d 523 (2005).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 224 So. 3d 1061 - State v. Dowden