Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 216 So. 3d 107 - State v. Williams

216 So. 3d 107 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

2017

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · 433 So. 2d 688 - State v. Smith · 523 So. 2d 1305 - State v. Mussall · McKay v. Jobin · Anchors v. United States

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

  1. “Reading the pertinent parts of these articles together, the state in this case had the burden of proving that the defendant had the specific intent to kill and did an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward accomplishing it. State v. Butler , 322 So.2d 189 (La.1975) ; State v. Guin , 444 So.2d 625 (La.App. 3 Cir.1983). Specific criminal intent has been statutorily defined as the state of mind which exists when circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the proscribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act. La.R.S. 14:10(1). Since specific intent is a state of mind, it need not be proven as a fact, but rather may be inferred from the circumstances and the actions of the defendant. State v. Graham , 420 So.2d 1126 (La.1982). State v. Hongo , 625 So.2d 610 , 613 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1993), writ denied , 631 So.2d 1163 (La.1994).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.