548 So. 2d 29 - State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The reviewing court properly looks to the expert and lay testimony and to the defendant's actions. State v. Jackson, 548 So.2d at 31 . The factors pertinent to a review of expert testimony are wide-ranging. They include whether lay testimony controverting the expert opinion was offered ( State v. Claibon , 395 at 774), whether the experts specifically concluded that the defendant could not discern between right and wrong at the time of the crime ( State v. Noble, 425 So.2d 734, 737 (La. 1983); State v. Claibon , 395 So.2d at 774 ), to what extent the expert testimony was premised on the self-serving revelations of the defendant ( State v. Parker, 416 So.2d 545, 551 (La.1982)), to what extent the expert analysis is controverted by other expert analysis ( State v. Heath, 447 So.2d 570, 576 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 448 So.2d 1302 (La.1984)), the duration of the expert's contact with the defendant and whether he had interviewed the defendant previous to the offense ( State v. Guidry, 450 So.2d 50, 52 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984), writ denied, 476 So.2d 344 (La.1985)), the chronological proximity of the expert examination to the offense, and whether the experts were treating physicians. State v. Nealy, 450 So.2d 634, 639 (La.1984). Insofar as the defendant's actions, such factors as whether the defendant fled, disposed of evidence, and deliberately planned and executed the offense are pertinent. State v. Pravata, 522 So.2d at 613-614 . [Emphasis supplied].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 626 So. 2d 913 - State v. Bibb

2. “... whether lay testimony controverting the expert opinion was offered ( State v. Claibon, 395 So.2d at 774 ), whether the experts specifically concluded that the defendant could not discern between right and wrong at the time of the crime ( State v. Noble, 425 So.2d 734, 737 (La.1983); State v. Claibon, 395 So.2d at 774 ), to what extent the expert testimony was premised on the self-serving revelations of the defendant ( State v. Parker, 416 So.2d 545, 551 (La.1982)), to what extent the expert analysis is controverted by other expert analysis ( State v. Heath, 447 So.2d 570, 576 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 448 So.2d 1302 (La.1984)), the duration of the expert's contact with the defendant and whether he had interviewed the defendant previous to the offense ( State v. Guidry, 450 So.2d 50, 52 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984), writ denied, 476 So.2d 344 (La.1985), the chronological proximity of the expert examination to the offense, and whether the experts were treating physicians. State v. Nealy, 450 So.2d 634, 639 (La.1984). Insofar as defendant's actions, such factors as whether the defendant fled, disposed of evidence, and deliberately planned and executed the offense are pertinent. State v. Pravata, 522 So.2d [606] at 613-614 [(La.App. 1 Cir.1988)]. State v. Bibb, 626 So.2d at 934 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 648 So. 2d 962 - State v. Franklin