393 So. 2d 670 - State v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 12 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"... Appropriate considerations in determining whether the accused is fully aware of the nature of the proceedings include: whether he understands the nature of the charge and can appreciate its seriousness; whether he understands what defenses are available; whether he can distinguish a guilty plea from a not guilty plea and understand the consequences of each; whether he has an awareness of his legal rights; and whether he understands the range of possible verdicts and the consequences of conviction. Facts to consider in determining an accused's ability to assist in his defense include: whether he is able to recall and relate facts pertaining to his actions and whereabouts at certain times; whether he is able to assist counsel in locating and examining relevant witnesses; whether he is able to maintain a consistent defense; whether he is able to listen to the testimony of witnesses and inform his lawyer of any distortions or misstatements; whether he has the ability to make simple decisions in response to well-explained alternatives; whether, if necessary to defense strategy, he is capable of testifying in his own defense; and to what extent, if any, his mental condition is apt to deteriorate under the stress of trial...."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Williams · State v. Narcisse

2. “It is ultimately the responsibility of the judge to determine whether a defendant possesses the mental capacity to proceed to trial. C.Cr.P. Art. 647. The report of the sanity commission is admissible as evidence, but it cannot be used as a substitute for the court's own judgment. State v. Lawrence, supra ; State v. Crochet, 354 So.2d 1288 (La.1977); State v. Bennett, 345 So.2d 1129 (La.1977)). Moreover, a trial judge's determination of a defendant's capacity to stand trial is entitled to great weight; State v. Hamilton, supra ; State v. Coco, supra ; State v. Lawrence, supra ; State v. Weber, supra ; State v. Morris, 340 So.2d 195 (La.1976); State v. Flores, supra . Here, the trial judge did not refuse to accept the opinion of medical experts; no opinion as to the defendant's capacity to stand trial was offered, other than the suspicion that defendant was malingering. The issue is not whether the sanity commission usurped the judge's function, but whether the judge could reasonably make a determination of defendant's present sanity when the doctors could not.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 11 So. 3d 1248 - State v. John · 406 So. 2d 1331 - State v. Edwards

3. “a defendant cannot prove the incapacity to stand trial merely by having stymied the efforts of the sanity commission.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 735 So. 2d 888 - State v. Hernandez · 406 So. 2d 1331 - State v. Edwards