State v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably 425 So. 2d 1251 - State v. Telsee (1983), 430 So. 2d 1286 - State v. Lewis (1983)
39 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · State v. Sepulvado · 369 So. 2d 118 - State v. Cox · 414 So. 2d 666 - State v. Wimberly · 412 So. 2d 1313 - State v. Robicheaux
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`Article 768 provides that, should the state fail to give notice of its intention to use a confession or inculpatory statement at trial, it is inadmissible. For purposes of this article, the term `inculpatory statement' refers to defendant's out of court admission made after a crime has taken place which implicates defendant in its commission. State v. Brent, 347 So.2d 1112 (La.1977); State v. Brumfield, 329 So.2d 181 (La.1976). Because the defendant made the challenged statement one hour before the crimes took place, Article 768 does not govern its admission into evidence." [Emphasis supplied]."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rubin · State v. Harris“... [A]s to the attempt [sic] second degree murder, this Court is guided by the sentencing guidelines set forth in Article 894.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and I considered those sentencing guidelines. Those guidelines state that this Court shall state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis in imposing sentence. I sat through the jury trial; I heard the evidence presented. The evidence as to guilt was overwhelming ... [and] left no possible doubt in my view as to this defendant’s guilt.... This was a brutal crime to say the least; a brutal attack. And this lady who testified described how she was clubbed, how her arm was broken, her hand was broken, her jaw was smashed and she suffered — her jaw was fractured, and she suffered a fractured skull. The evidence indicates she could have bled to death, but fortunately she did not die. [...] I, of course, know a great deal of Leroy Berthelot because I’ve conducted a number of hearings. I know a great deal about his prior psychiatric problems, which I don’t feel is necessary to repeat here this morning. I have considered his entire background and I have considered these guidelines. Now, Article 883 of the Code indicates that ... “if a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses based on the same act or transaction, the terms of imprisonment shall be moved concurrently unless the Court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively” ... This type of crime being so vicious and ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Berthelot“[T]he sentences imposed may actually represent appropriate, individualized sentences considering these particular offenses and this particular defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.