48 So. 3d 1210 - State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 So. 3d 348 - State v. Pierre · 210 So. 3d 340 - State v. Richardson

2. “Specific intent may be established by the circumstances surrounding an accused’s actions. State v. Anderson, 98-492 (La.App. 8 Cir. 10/28/98), 721 So.2d 1006 , writ denied, 98-2976 (La.3/19/99), 739 So.2d 781 . It is well-settled that the act of pointing a gun at a person and firing the gun is an indication of the intent to kill that person. State v. Pierre, 02-277 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/11/03) , 854 So.2d 945 , writ denied, 03-2042 (La.1/16/04), 864 So.2d 626 ; State v. Reed, 00-1537 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/02) , 809 So.2d 1261 , writ denied, 02-1313 (La.4/25/03), 842 So.2d 391 ; State v. Clark, 93-1470 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/94) , 643 So.2d 463 , writ denied, 94-2715 (La.2/9/95), 649 So.2d 418 . Testimony established that each shooter, Defendant and Fontenot, fired their guns three to four times at the intended victim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 76 So. 3d 1274 - State v. Jones

3. “[A]s stated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Hampton, 98-331, p. 13 (La.4/23/99), 750 So.2d 867, 880 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1007 , 120 S.Ct. 504 , 145 L.Ed.2d 390 (1999): A person may be convicted of an offense even if he has not personally fired the fatal shot. The law of principals states that all persons involved in the commission of a crime, whether present or absent, are equally culpable. See La.Rev.Stat. 14:24. However, the Defendant’s mere presence at the scene is not enough to “concern” an individual in the crime. State v. Schwander, 345 So.2d 1173, 1174-1175 (La.1977). A principal may be connected only to those crimes for which he has the requisite mental state. State v. Holmes, 388 So.2d 722 (La.1980); State v. McAllister, 366 So.2d 1340 (La.1978).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 61 So. 3d 794 - State v. Trahan