State v. Malveaux’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 2011
4 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 · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · 448 So. 2d 676 - State v. Captville · 488 So. 2d 965 - State v. Rosiere · State v. Andrus
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In State v. Andrus, 250 La. 765 , 199 So.2d 867 (1967), the court noted that incriminating statements made by the accused are placed in three categories. The first is the confession which admits to the guilt of the crime charged. The second is the admission which involves the existence of criminal intent. The third is the admission or acknowledgment of facts which tend to establish guilt but which do not involve the existence of criminal intent. Id. at 765 , 199 So.2d at 880 . The court concluded that remarks which are not express admissions of guilt or facts showing criminal intent can be introduced without the foundation necessary for admitting a confession, despite the fact that the statement might be considered inculpatory. Id. at 765 , 199 So.2d at 881 . Of course, truly exculpatory statements are never used by the prosecution. Statements which the defendant intended to be exculpatory are instead used to impeach his testimony at trial or to demonstrate inaccuracies in the statement he gave under interrogation and thus to prove guilt by implication. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). In Miranda , the Court demanded that the advice-of-rights warning be given regardless of whether the statements are considered inculpatory or exculpatory. In the instant case, defendant's statements are exculpatory and do not purport to be confessions under LSA-R.S. 15:451. They do not involve the existence of criminal intent. The state offered these st”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Boothe · State v. Baker
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.