344 So. 2d 1002 - State v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 11 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Insanity is a defense to any crime when 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 ...’ R.S. 14:14. Voluntarily induced intoxication, however, is only a defense when the condition ‘has precluded the presence of a specific criminal intent or of a special knowledge required in a particular crime ...’ R.S. 14:15. Thus, it provides no defense to crimes only requiring a general intent. State v. Boleyn, 328 So.2d 95 (La.1976). ****** The legislature obviously intended that a person should be held responsible for the consequences of his voluntarily induced intoxication. Thus, in a crime requiring general criminal intent the requisite intent is ‘generally found in the accused’s intention to become intoxicated, i.e., the accused is held to have intended, in law, all the consequences of his intoxicated condition.’ State v. Boleyn, supra, at 99 . The exception the legislature provided for is when the intoxicated condition precluded the formation of specific intent; in such a case, intoxication does provide a defense. To the extent, however, that a person is incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong solely due to an overly intoxicated condition, without some additional proof of mental disorder, the legislature intended to prevent such drunkenness from becoming a defense to a general intent crime. See Reporter’s comments to R.S. 14:15.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Godeaux · 618 So. 2d 1204 - State v. Sheppard

2. “"Now Article 15 which Mr. Tanner read you concerns an intoxicated or drugged condition of the offender at the time of the commission of the crime. The law says that, it is immaterial where it is involuntary, but where it is voluntary, it says it must be to such an extent that it has precluded the presence of a specific criminal intent or of special knowledge required in a particular crime, this fact constitutes a defense to a prosecution for that crime. "Now would you consider the crimes themselves in reaching this determination in order to determine what intent is necessary and if there is any special knowledge necessary to commit the crime before you would reach the determination that if the self-induced intoxication or drugged condition is so great that it could repair their ability to distinguish between right and wrong? Do you understand my question?"”

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

3. “If 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.”

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