375 So. 2d 97 - State v. Wade’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[W]e do not find that due process is offended by the Louisiana rule that a defendant cannot rebut evidence of specific intent by presentation of psychiatric testimony, without pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. "Nor do we find persuasive the defendant's contention that this rule, essentially founded on La.C.Cr.P. art. 651 and La.R.S. 14:14 (both referred to above), was intended to be legislatively modified by a provision of our criminal discovery act adopted in 1977. La.C.Cr.P. art. 726 A (1977) requires notice to the state by a defendant if `[he] intends to introduce testimony relating to a mental disease, defect, or other condition bearing upon the issue of whether he had the mental state required for the offense charged.' "The purpose of the notice requirement of Article 726 A is merely to require discovery of the intent to use such evidence (when admissible, as on a plea of insanity), not to provide substantively for its admissibility on the issue of specific intent."”

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

2. “[w]hen a defendant is tried upon a plea of `not guilty', evidence of insanity or mental defect at the time of the offense shall not be admissible.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 607 So. 2d 665 - State v. Anseman

3. “forgery be committed with the specific intent to defraud.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 748 So. 2d 1 - State v. Durham