State v. Broussard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This “same evidence” test depends upon the evidence necessary for conviction. See, State v. Steele, [ 387 So.2d 1175 (La.1980) ] supra. In this case, “[i]n order to convict an accused of driving while intoxicated the state need only prove that (1) defendant was operating a vehicle or other conveyance; and (2) that defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages or some type of drug.” State v. Fontenot, 408 So.2d 919, 921 (La.1981). This evidence, neces sary to support a DWI conviction would not have been sufficient, without a showing of loss of control, to support a conviction for failure to maintain control of a vehicle. “Where the gravamen of the second offense is essentially included within the offense for which first tried, the second prosecution is barred because of the former jeopardy. [State v.] Didier, supra, [ 262 La. 364 , 263 So.2d 322 ] at page 327 [ (1972) ]. Likewise, the gravamen of the second offense, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, is not essentially included within the offense of failure to maintain control of a vehicle. Accordingly, the second prosecution for DWI is not barred because of the former jeopardy. It cannot be successfully argued that DWI and failure to maintain control of a vehicle are substantially regulating the identical conduct. The issue of double jeopardy in a DWI/failure to maintain control context is res nova in Louisiana although the two have been used to convict the same defendant for one course of conduct. St”

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