332 So. 2d 270 - State v. Johanson’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2000
12 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Edwards · State v. Matthews · State v. Bickham · 301 So. 2d 323 - State v. Pace · State v. Plaisance
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the circumstances indicate that because of a mental disease or mental defect the offender was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong with reference to the conduct in question, the offender shall be exempt from criminal responsibility.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Under this statute, evidence of a mental condition or defect is inadmissible when the defendant failed to plead not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. Moreover, a mental defect or disorder short of insanity cannot serve to negate specific intent and reduce the degree of the crime. * * * * * * "Initially, we note that specific intent is an ultimate legal conclusion to be resolved by the fact finders. Because an `expert witness must state the facts upon which his opinion is based,' we can reasonably deduce that the testimony of an expert in psychiatry and psychoanalysis concerning the defendant's lack of specific intent would necessarily include testimony of a mental defect or condition. See LSA-R.S. 15:465. Stated another way, in order for the physician to testify as to the effect, no specific intent, she would testify as to the cause, mental condition. This is true even when he asserts (for the first time in brief) that the testimony would prove the absence of specific intent as a defense as distinguished from the inability to form specific intent. "We hold, therefore, that Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 651 precludes admission of an expert's testimony concerning the absence of specific intent when the defendant's plea is not guilty."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bourque
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.