397 So. 2d 1258 - State v. Monroe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 105 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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although the jury found the instant offense to have been committed in an “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner,” this finding cannot stand. It is true that the murder was brutal — the victim lost over two quarts of blood, her lungs were punctured and one of her ribs was severed. Her death was not instantaneous, and she lived long enough to call out for her daughter and reach for the telephone. Nonetheless, in order for a murder to be “especially heinous,” there must exist evidence that there was “torture or the pitiless infliction of unnecessary pain on the victim.” State v. English, 367 So.2d 815, 823 (La. 1979). State v. Clark, 387 So.2d 1124 (La. 1980), provides an example of what is meant by “especially heinous.” In that case the defendant stabbed the victim thirty-five times before shooting him with a gun. In the instant case, the “wounds were inflicted to kill, not to maim or to inflict pain.” State v. Culberth, supra, at 851. While there is some evidence in this case that the offense was heinous and cruel, it was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the instant offense was especially heinous.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Tassin · State v. Palmer

2. “to disregard the law as given to it in the instructions of the trial court.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 957 So. 2d 724 - State v. Frank · 736 So. 2d 162 - State v. Wessinger

3. “"4. "By law, a jury may not consider the imposition of the death penalty unless and until the jury finds, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, that at least one of the aggravating circumstances set forth above exists. The aggravating circumstances which the law permits you to consider if you find that any of them is established by the evidence are: "a) The offender was engaged in the perpetration of aggravated rape and armed robbery; and "b) The offender has a significant prior history of criminal activity. "These are the only aggravating circumstances you may consider. You are not allowed to take into account any other facts or circumstances as the basis for deciding that the death penalty would be an appropriate punishment in this case. "14. "There is noting (sic) that prevents you from affording Willie Watson mercy in thise (sic) proceedings by sentencing him to life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence regardless of the evidence presented to you and even if you have not found the existence of any mitigating circumstances." "16. "If upon the evidence in this phase of the proceeding you have any doubt as to the appropriate sentence, then you must return a verdict sentencing Willie Watson to life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 407 So. 2d 1150 - State v. Mattheson · 449 So. 2d 1321 - State v. Watson