174 So. 3d 177 - State v. White’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “to prove second degree murder the state must prove the killing of a human being either with specific intent or when the offender is engaged in one of the listed crimes.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Guidry · State v. Trahan

2. “when the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Guidry · State v. Trahan

3. “In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable .to the prosecution, any rational trier, of fact could have found the defendant.guilty beyond ^reasonable doubt. Jackson, v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Green, 588 So.2d 757, 758 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991). However, the reviewing court may not disregard this duty simply because the record contains evidence that tends to support each fact necessary to constitute the crime. State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305, 1311 (La.1988). The reviewing court must consider the record as a whole since that is what a rational trier of fact would do. If rational triers of fact could disagree as to the interpretation of the evidence, the rational trier’s Anew of all the evidence most favorable to the prosecution must be adopted. The factfinder’s discretion will be impinged upon only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law. See Mussall, supra; Green, supra. “[A] reviewing court is' not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” State v. Smith; 600 So.2d 1319, 1324 (La.1992).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 So. 3d 728 - State v. Lambert · State v. Trahan