210 So. 3d 340 - State v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[U]nless the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 224 So. 3d 1 - State v. Duhon · State v. Sant

2. “With regard to the defendant's convictions for attempted second degree murder, La.R.S. 14:30.1 provides, in relevant part, that "[s]econd degree murder is the killing of a human being: (1) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm[.]" Further, attempt is defined in La.R.S. 14:27(A), which provides that: Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. Thus, although La.R.S. 14:30.1 provides that second degree murder requires "specific intent to kill" or "to inflict great bodily harm," in order to be convicted of attempted second degree murder, the State must prove that the defendant had the specific intent to kill. State [ v. ] Thomas , 10-269 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/6/10) , 48 So.3d 1210 , writ denied , 10-2527 (La. 4/1/11), 60 So.3d 1248 , cert. denied , 565 U.S. 859 , 132 S.Ct. 196 , 181 L.Ed.2d 102 (2011). However, that intent may be inferred from the specific circumstances of the offense and the defendant's conduct. Id.”

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

3. “The standard of appellate review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is well-settled. In State v. Macon, 06-481, pp. 7-8 (La. 6/1/07), 957 So.2d 1280, 1285-86 , the supreme court reiterated that standard, stating: The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305 (La.1988). A determination of the weight of evidence is a question of fact, resting solely with the trier of fact who may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witnesses. State v. Silman, 95-0154 (La. 11/27/95), 663 So.2d 27, 35 . A reviewing court may impinge on the factfinding function of the jury only to the extent necessary to assure the Jackson standard of review. State v. Bordenam, 95-2328 (La. 4/26/96), 678 So.2d 19, 20 . It is not the function of an appellate court to assess credibility or re-weigh the evidence. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 216 So. 3d 107 - State v. Williams