573 So. 2d 616 - State v. Randel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““An essential element of the crime of attempted purse snatching is the specific intent to commit theft of anything of value contained within a purse or wallet. La. R.S. 14:27, 14:65.1. It is this intent, not the possibility of success, that determines whether the act perpetrated constitutes the crime of attempt.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Marts · State v. Johnson

2. ““The State presented no evidence to show that Randel knew or could have known the contents of Mrs. Laney’s pocket. Mrs. Lañéis testimony shows that the item involved was not a purse or wallet, but rather a black plastic eyeglasses case. The evidence only proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Randel had the specific intent to snatch whatever was within Mrs. La-ney’s pocket. The lack of evidence leaves open alternate, but equally reasonable hypotheses, that Randel had the specific intent to steal an eyeglasses case, a cigarette case, or even loose cash. Therefore, our review compels us to conclude that the State did not meet its burden of proving an essential element of the offense of attempted purse snatching, the specific intent to commit theft of anything of value contained within a purse or wallet. R.S. 14:27, 14:65.1.” Id. 573 So.2d at 618-619 .”

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

3. “Theft is an essential element of purse snatching....”

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