State v. Deboue’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2016 · most notably Deboue v. Louisiana (1990), 559 So. 2d 1321 - State v. Wille (1990)
57 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 · Caldwell v. Mississippi · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Michelson v. United States · Godfrey v. Georgia
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The argument shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law applicable to the case. The argument shall not appeal to prejudice. The state's rebuttal shall be confined to answering the argument of the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“However, it is well settled that the state may not reserve part of its case-in-chief for rebuttal testimony after the defense has rested.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Vidaurri · State v. Turnbo“[T]here was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant, upon breaking into the apartment, intended to kill anyone discovered therein so that there could be no witnesses against him. One of his stated reasons for killing the children was that he "did not want to do forty years." Therefore the jury could have reasonably concluded that the defendant acted throughout the course of the burglary with intent to kill one or more persons, i.e., any and all potential witnesses against him who were present at the scene. In order for the jury to make this determination, it was unnecessary for it to know with certainty which victim was attacked first, whether the defendant knew of the presence of both children in the home at the time that he committed the first murder, or whether the first victim was still alive at the time the second victim was attacked. In summary, the evidence fully supports a finding that defendant committed both first degree murders.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.