State v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) Is the indictment or information sufficient to inform the court of the offense being charged in order that the court might properly regulate the evidence sought to be introduced? "(2) Does the indictment or information inform the accused of the nature and cause of the offense with which he is being charged? "(3) Is the indictment or information sufficient on its face to support a plea of former jeopardy in the event there is an attempt to try the defendant more than once for the same offense?”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Pizzolotto · State v. Fitzgerald

2. “"But counsel for the accused urges still another objection. It is that the indictment in this case did not charge that the accused `criminally, negligently killed', it simply charged that he `negligently killed' the victim. Hence, he continues, a serious handicap to a proper defense is thereby presented, for when a jury is informed that the accused `negligently' killed someone, it becomes most difficult to explain the meaning of criminal negligence. That alleged difficulty is provided a vehicle by which it can be clarified and which is embodied in the definition which the law supplies for criminal negligence. That definition, contained in Article 12 of the Louisiana Criminal Code, LSA-R.S. 14:12 is as follows: "`Criminal negligence exists when, although neither specific nor general criminal intent is present, there is such disregard of the interest of others that the offender's conduct amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care expected to be maintained by a reasonably careful man under like circumstances.' "This definition is available for instructions to the jury, and is to be read in connection with Article 32 of the Louisiana Criminal Code, LSA-R.S. 14:32, which defines the crime, and makes criminal negligence an essential element thereof. It is difficult to perceive that a handicap to the defense exists under these circumstances. Nevertheless both the Ward case and Heiman case already referred to, have decided adversely to this contention, and those cases ar”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Scheler · 277 So. 2d 146 - State v. Guillot

3. ““Whenever the State elects to use a form of indictment other than the short form provided for by Article 235, the allegations of the indictment must adhere strictly to the provisions of the statute and the decisions of this Court affecting same. * * * “Undoubtedly, Article 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates the use of forms of indictment authorized by the laws of this State other than the short form set forth in Article 235. “It is to be noted that in Article 235, where the short forms are set out, there is a provision to the effect that the district attorney may be required to furnish a bill of particulars setting forth more specifically the nature of the offense charged. The defendant’s constitutional guaranty that he shall be fully apprised of the nature and cause of the accusation is amply protected by this provision. No such provision is contained in Article 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the indictment would necessarily have to be more specific. “The defendant in this case was furnished with all the information that he requested in his bill of particulars. If he desired further information in order to prepare his defense, it could have been obtained by bill of particulars. “It might be suggested that Article 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not make it mandatory upon the court to require the State to furnish the particulars. While it is discretionary with the trial judge, yet, he cannot arbitrarily refuse to order the State to furni”

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