604 So. 2d 52 - State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Generally, an out of court statement of the accused constitutes hearsay unless subject to an exception. Such a statement is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when it is an admission against interest. Thus, the defendant may not introduce his own self-serving exculpatory statements because they are hearsay. [citing Freeman, supra ] In the present case, defendant apparently intended to use the statement for its exculpatory value. As it was an attempt by him to use an out-of-court statement to prove the truth of the matters asserted, the statement clearly falls within the definition of hearsay. Therefore, unless the statement fits within one of the recognized exceptions, then the trial judge was correct in ruling the statement inadmissible. The statement was clearly a self-serving declaration and therefore does not constitute an admission against interest which is an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to LSA-C.E. art. 804(B)(3).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 731 So. 2d 936 - State v. Lanham

2. “Thus, looking at the definition of an `attempt,' the prosecution's burden is to prove specific intent and the commission of an overt act tending toward accomplishing the offense. Specific intent is defined as that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act. L.S.A. 14:10(1). As it is a state of mind, specific intent need not be proven as a fact, but may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction and the actions of the defendant. State v. Graham, 420 So.2d 1126 (La.1982); State v. Doby, 540 So.2d 1008 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1989), writ denied, 544 So.2d 398 (La.1989).”

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

3. “The defendant was convicted of two counts of armed robbery and one count of attempted armed robbery. The maximum sentence he could have received could have been up to 247 years. Although the trial judge did not elaborate on the reasons for the sentence; he did review the fact that the defendant had arm-robbed two females and attempted to arm-rob a third female. That he had put three lives in jeopardy and was involved in a chase in which shots were fired and other lives were placed in jeopardy. Armed robbery is a serious offense and here the defendant received less than one-third of the maximum sentence. Accordingly, we do not find the sentence excessive.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 631 So. 2d 1195 - State v. Kennedy