21 So. 3d 465 - State ex rel. T.W.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In a juvenile proceeding, the state’s burden of proof is the same as in a criminal proceeding against an adult-to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense alleged in the petition. La. Ch.Code art. 883; In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court in Louisiana is 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).... [T]he 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 all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a ^reasonable doubt.” State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984). State in the interest of D.P.B., 02-1742, pp. 4-5 (La.5/20/03), 846 So.2d 753 , 756. “[Ajppellate review in juvenile delinquency proceedings extends to both law and facts.” State in the interest of L.T., 99-487, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99), 747 So.2d 148,152 . In order to reverse a fact finder’s determination of fact, an appellate court must review the record in its. entirety and (1) find that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding, and if such a basis does exist, (2) further determine that the record establishes that the fact finder is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. See Stobart v. State, through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 149 So. 3d 923 - State ex rel. D.J. · 136 So. 3d 971 - State ex rel. E.T.

2. “| ^Immediately after the adjudication in the case at bar, the following transpired: THE COURT: All right. The Court finds the defendant guilty as charged and orders the defendant to serve— MS. NEUMANN: Judge, before you set that, we might just indicate that he’s been in jail since August, which is six (6) months. He has been a model prisoner. He has helped in— THE COURT: This is a serious offense. I understand. This kid is in denial, and I don’t like what I’ve heard. And he’s going to serve until his twenty-first (21st) birthday because that’s as long as I can lock him up for. MS. BREAUX: You have to, Judge. You have no discretion. THE COURT: Yes. MS. BREAUX: Thank you. The Juvenile asserts that familiarity with a juvenile and a lengthy history with the trial court does not absolve the trial court from conducting a disposition hearing. Further, counsel’s failure to object to the immediate disposition did not waive his right to a hearing. In support of his argument, the Juvenile cites State in the Interest of O.R., 96-890 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/25/97) , 690 So.2d 200 ; State ex rel. E.S., an unpublished opinion bearing docket number 08-41 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/20/08) ; and State in the Interest of C.D., 95-160 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/95) , 658 So.2d 39 . In C.D., 658 So.2d 39 , and O.R., 690 So.2d 200 , the fifth circuit vacated the dispositions ■ and remanded for disposition hearings where the record failed to reflect that disposition hearings had been held, and the record failed to refl”

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

3. “A. At the disposition hearing, unless the child waives the presentation, the court shall hear evidence as to whether the child is in need of treatment or rehabilitation and shall make and file its findings. B. All evidence helpful in determining the proper disposition, including oral and written reports, the report of the predisposition investigation, any reports of mental evaluation, and all other evidence offered by the child or the state shall be received by the court and may be relied upon to the extent of its probative value even though not admissible at the adjudication hearing. Upon motion of the district attorney or the child, the court may hear testimony from the victim of the offense. C. Counsel for the state and for the child shall be afforded an opportunity to present evidence and to examine and controvert written reports so received and to cross-examine individuals preparing the reports or other witnesses who give testimony at the hearing. Sources of confidential information need not be disclosed.”

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