52 So. 3d 89 - State v. Declouet’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “I’ve listened to the testimony of the victim’s mother, and I sat through the trial. And the jury found you guilty of a responsive verdict, manslaughter. And I want to say that I have had a serious and lengthy discussion with counsel, and I’ve listened to all of his arguments. And I am compelled to follow 894.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when it comes to sentencing guidelines. And I have, in fact, considered it. The penalty ranges from ten to forty years at hard labor. And I do believe that there is a need for correctional treatment in a custodial environment; I also believe that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the offense. And I have considered the following grounds, and it shall be afforded weight as the Code provides. I do find that the offense as committed was manifestly deliberate cruelty to the victim. The testimony is quite clear that the victim received seven shots, four to the front of his torso and three to the back. One of those three was through and through from almost the dead center of the back, through the front, and exiting near the center or bridge of his nose. I find that there was actual violence in the commission of the offense, that there is permanent injury to the victim’s family ... I also find that there was a dangerous weapon used in the commission of the offense. Also, I find that there was foreseeable endangerment of human life by discharging the firearm on that night. |ar,I will admit, from the mitigating standpoint, I’ve”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 119 So. 3d 202 - State v. Pham

2. “The trial judge determines whether evidence is “relevant by deciding whether it bears a rational connection to the fact which is at issue in the case.” State v. Scales, 93-2003 (La.5/22/95), 655 So.2d 1326, 1333 , cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1050 , 116 S.Ct. 716 , 133 L.Ed.2d 670 (1996). Additionally, the trial court is given great discretion in determining whether evidence is relevant, and absent a clear abuse of discretion, rulings on relevancy of evidence should not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Karam, 02-0163, p. 13 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/31/02), 834 So.2d 1003 (citing State v. Anthony, 98-0406, p. 16 (La.4/11/00), 776 So.2d 376, 387 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 934 , 121 S.Ct. 320 , 148 L.Ed.2d 258 (2000)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 165 So. 3d 454 - State v. Monroe

3. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of-the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or waste of time.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 165 So. 3d 454 - State v. Monroe