State v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
20 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1112
Relies on 384 So. 2d 355 - State v. Bonanno · 419 So. 2d 475 - State v. Lanclos · 523 So. 2d 1305 - State v. Mussall · Graham v. Florida · 425 So. 2d 1251 - State v. Telsee
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In considering the nature of the offense, both the trial court and the reviewing court may assess whether the crime for which defendant has been convicted adequately describes his conduct when the conviction is for a lesser included responsive offense to the crime charged.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Daniels · State v. Katron“On appeal, defendant not only challenged his sentence but also argued that the evidence did not support the court’s verdict of manslaughter or any other responsive verdict because the only rational interpretation of the evidence at trial was that he retrieved the gun to insure that no one got hurt and that the weapon then discharged accidentally. [State v.] Lewis, 08-1317 at 8, [(La.App. 5 Cir. 5/26/09),] 16 So.3d [385] at 390. Addressing that argument first, the court of appeal agreed with the state that because the evidence at trial was sufficient to prove the charged offense of second degree murder, a specific intent homicide, it was also sufficient to support a conviction for manslaughter. In that regard, the court of appeal followed settled jurisprudence that specific intent to kill may be inferred from the act of pointing a gun and firing at a person in close proximity. See, e.g., See State v. Tassin, 536 So.2d 402, 411 (La.1988)(pointing and firing a gun at point-blank range supports an inference of specific intent to kill); State v. Noble, 425 So.2d 734, 736 (La.l983)(same). The court of appeal also applied the settled rule on review of the sufficiency of evidence that “the fact finder is given much discretion in determinations of credibility and evidence, and the reviewing court will only impinge on his discretion to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.” Lewis, [ 16 So.3d at 391 ] (citing State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Carmouche
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.