41 So. 3d 625 - State v. Watts’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “La. R.S. 14:8 plainly recognizes that certain conduct is criminal even in the absence of criminal intent. Additionally, La. R.S. 14:11 provides that in some crimes “no intent is required.” While offenses that dispose of a scienter requirement are not favored, the United States Supreme Court has noted that the legislatures’ authority to define a criminal offense includes the power to “exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition.” Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228 , 78 S.Ct. 240, 242 , 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1958). See also Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 545 , 88 S.Ct. 2145, 2160 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1968) (Black, J. concurring) (“[L]egislatures have always been allowed wide freedom to determine the extent to which moral culpability should be a prerequisite to conviction of a crime.”). The Louisiana Legislature has determined that specific or general intent is not a necessary element of every crime. La. R.S. 14:8. Therefore, proof of whether the defendant’s failure to register as a sex offender was intentional plays no part in determining the defendant’s guilt of the instant offense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 222 So. 3d 956 - State v. Dominick · 209 So. 3d 793 - State v. Ball

2. “In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, an appellate court must determine that the evidence, whether, direct or circumstantial, or a mixture of both, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational -trier-of-fact that all of the elements of the crime have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Additionally, when circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, the evidence, “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove ... must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” La. R.S. 15:438; see State v. Jacobs, 504 So.2d 817, 820 (La.1987) (all direct and circumstantial- evidence must meet the Jackson v. Virginia test); State v. Porretto, 468 So.2d 1142, 1146 (La.1985) (La. R.S. 15:438 mandates that “all evidence both direct and circumstantial, must be sufficient under Jackson to satisfy a rational juror that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”). In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflicts with physical evidence, the testimony of one witness, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient to support a conviction. State v. Jones, 97-2591, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/8/99), 744 So.2d 165, 169 . The trier of fact makes credibility determinations, and may, within the bounds of rationality, accept or reject the testimony of any witness. Thus, the reviewing court may impinge on the fact-find”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 202 So. 3d 506 - State v. Broussard