184 So. 3d 886 - State v. Fox’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. ““In examining a self-defense claim, it is necessary to consider: (1) whether the defendant reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; (2) whether the killing was necessary to prevent that death or great bodily harm; and (3) whether the defendant was the aggressor in the conflict.” State v. Mayes, 14-683, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/23/14), 154 So.3d 1257, 1259 , writs denied, 15-178, 15-220 (La. 11/16/15), 184 So.3d 24 . Additionally, in determining whether the defendant had a reasonable belief that the killing was necessary, it is appropriate to consider “the excitement and confusion of the situation, the possibility of using force or violence short of killing, and the defendant’s knowledge of the assailant’s bad character.” State v. Thomas, 43,100, p. 5 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/30/08), 981 So.2d 850, 854 , writ denied, 08-1276 (La. 2/6/09), 999 So.2d 769 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 216 So. 3d 313 - State v. Cofer · 195 So. 3d 644 - State v. Lirette

2. “(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger. [[Image here]] (3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes ... is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle .... (4) (a)When committed by a person lawfully inside ... a motor vehicle ... when the conflict began, against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the ... motor vehicle ... and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the ... motor vehicle.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 216 So. 3d 313 - State v. Cofer

3. “(1) A homicide which would be murder under either Article 30 (first degree murder) or Article 30.1 (second degree murder), but the offense 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. Provocation shall not reduce a homicide to manslaughter if the jury finds that the offender’s blood had actually cooled, or that an- average person’s blood would have cooled, at the time the offense was committed; or (2) A homicide committed, without any intent to cause death or great bodily harm.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 195 So. 3d 644 - State v. Lirette