125 So. 3d 586 - State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Decisions relating to investigation, preparation, and strategy require an- eviden-tiary hearing and cannot possibly be reviewed on appeal. Only in an evidentiary hearing in the district court, where the defendant could present evidence -beyond that contained in the instant, record, could these allegations be sufficiently investigated. Accordingly, the defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel will be relegated to post-conviction relief.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 157 So. 3d 1230 - State v. Harris · State v. Thibeaux

2. “T.H. did not make an inculpatory statement to law enforcement. Ms. Charles did not give a statement to law enforcement, nor did she testify at trial as to whether T.H. knew that a theft was going to occur. Both [Detective] Gerard and Ms. Hebert testified that when T.H. was arrested he had did not have a stolen item in his hands, or otherwise on his person. T.H. was not with Ms. Charles when she left the store. T.H. testified that he did not know that Ms. Charles intended to steal the shorts. The only thing that was proved beyond a reasonable doubt is that T.H. handed a pair of shorts to Ms. Charles. Further, the divergent testimony elicited from [Detective] Gerard and Ms. Hebert is detrimental to the state’s case. [Detective] Gerard, a police officer with nine years of experience, testified that T.H. did not witness Ms. Charles placing the shorts in her bag. Ms. Hebert, a Walmart employee, testified that T.H. watched Ms. Charles place the shorts in her bag. If T.H. did not witness the theft take place, then the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he specifically intended for Ms. Charles to steal the item.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 140 So. 3d 911 - State ex rel. T.H.

3. “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, Louisiana appellate courts are controlled by the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984). That standard dictates that to affirm the conviction the appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that the State proved all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Johnson, 03-1228, p. 4 (La.4/14/04), 870 So.2d 995, 998 ; Captville, 448 So.2d at 678 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 140 So. 3d 911 - State ex rel. T.H.