16 So. 3d 385 - State v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defendant in this case is charged with second degree murder of Marcus Despanie. Second degree murder, for purposes of these charges, is the killing of a human being when the offender has a specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm. Thus, in order to convict the defendant of second degree murder, you must find that the defendant killed Marcus Despanie and that the defendant acted with a specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm. To convict the defendant of the offense charged, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the State proved every element of second degree murder. If you are not convinced that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged, you may find the defendant is guilty of a lesser included offense if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty of such lesser offense. And I’m now going to talk to you about the lesser responsive offenses. The first one is manslaughter. Manslaughter is the killing of a human being when the offense would have been second degree murder, but the killing is committed in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection. The measure of the adequacy of the provocation to cause a defendant to act in sudden passion or heat of blood is the average or ordinary person and not the peculiar psychological characteristics of a particular defendant. Provocation shall not reduce a homicide to manslau”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Carmouche

2. “still think with sixteen-year-old brains. They don’t think with thirty-year-old brains. If they thought with forty-or fifty-year-old brains, they wouldn’t be fighting over a one dollar cigar with marijuana. But a life was lost, a young life that was a value to the people who loved him, and he lost his chance. So I don’t take it lightly at all. I think a sentence which will serve the purpose of justice in this matter, and ... because any lesser sentence ... would deprecate the seriousness of the crime, is thirty years at hard labor.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lewis