State v. Nolen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the failure to list a lesser included offense among the possible responsive verdicts does not automatically justify reversal. Due process requires, the Court said in Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605 , 102 S.Ct. 2049 , 72 L.Ed.2d 367 (1982), `... that a lesser included offense instruction be given when the evidence warrants such an instruction. But due process requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given only when the evidence warrants such an instruction. The jury's discretion is thus channelled so that it may convict a defendant of any crime fairly supported by the evidence...' "See also State v. Henry, 439 So.2d 1242 (La.App. 5th Cir.1983), in which a conviction for aggravated rape was affirmed although the trial judge failed to list a statutorily designated lesser verdict (guilty of forcible rape) because it was totally inappropriate to the facts. The court said: `When the requested lesser offense contains all the essential elements of the greater offense, the defendant is entitled to have the jury consider that lesser included offense. When, however, an essential element of the lesser crime is lacking in the greater charged offense ... a conviction on a legislatively designated lesser offense which is unsupported by the evidence will be constitutionally infirm. `We hold that the trial judge was correct in excluding the charge of forcible rape in this prosecution for aggravated rape. Though forcible rape is”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Reese · 632 So. 2d 351 - State v. Williams

2. “A. Aggravated oral sexual battery is an oral sexual battery committed when the intentional touching of the genitals or anus of one person and the mouth or tongue of another is deemed to be without the lawful consent of the victim because it is committed under any one or more of the following circumstances: (1) When the victim resists the act to the utmost, but whose resistance is overcome by force. (2) When the victim is prevented from resisting the act by threats of great and immediate bodily harm, accompanied by apparent power of execution. (3) When the victim is prevented from resisting the act because the offender is armed with a dangerous weapon. (4) When the victim is under the age of twelve years. Lack of knowledge of the victim's age shall not be a defense. (5) When two or more offenders participated in the act without the consent of the victim. B. For purposes of Paragraph (5) of Subsection A of this Section, "participate" shall mean: (1) Commit the act of oral sexual battery. (2) Physically assist in the commission of such act.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 653 So. 2d 140 - State v. Busby

3. “"Sexual battery is the intentional engaging in any of the following acts with another person, who is not the spouse of the offender, where the offender compels the other person to submit by placing the person in fear of receiving bodily harm: "(1) The touching of the anus or genitals of the offender using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the offender; or "(2) The touching of the anus or genitals of the offender by the victim using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the victim."”

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