State v. Bouzigard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It should be noted that prosecution under R.S. 40:966 and comparable statutes which provide for enhanced penalties for repeat violators is unlike prosecution under the Habitual Offender Law, R.S. 15:529.1 which concerns itself with prior unrelated felonies. Under that statute if the District Attorney chooses to exercise his discretion and charge a defendant with being a habitual offender, he must file a bill of information under R.S. 15:529.1 only after conviction or sentence. There the prior felony or felonies for which a defendant has been convicted, from {sic; form} no element of the most recently committed offense, and as provided by the second paragraph of Article 483, La.C.Cr.Pr. `... the indictment shall not contain an allegation of a prior conviction of the defendant unless such allegation is necessary to fully charge the offense.' Bouzigard, 286 So.2d at 636 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Skipper · State v. Labom

2. “In construing the multiple offender statute, we have held that the jury cannot be informed of the previous convictions which will later be spread before a judge alone so that he may determine the penalty to be imposed. State v. Jones, 209 La. 394 , 24 So.2d 627 (1945). Our law condemns the use of other offenses during the trial of the defendant for a particular offense because of the overriding prejudicial effect it may have in the jurors' minds of the guilt or innocence for the particular offense charged. Particularly in crimes involving narcotics, prior offenses are highly prejudicial in determining whether or not a defendant is guilty of the particular offense of which he is presently accused. (emphasis supplied).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Williams · 815 So. 2d 1063 - State v. Wells

3. “* * * * * * "(2) On a second conviction for violation of Subsection C of this section with regard to marijuana, the offender shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars and/or imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than five years. "* * * * * * LSA-R.S. 40:979, relating to attempts, provides: "Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense denounced and/or made unlawful by the provisions of this part shall, upon conviction, be fined or imprisoned in the same manner as for the offense planned or attempted, but such fine or imprisonment shall not exceed one-half of the punishment prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 328 So. 2d 154 - State v. Keys