612 So. 2d 308 - State v. Leeming’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Before a confession can be introduced into evidence, the State has the burden of proving that it was free and voluntary and not made under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements or promises. [footnote omitted] LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 703(D); LSA-R.S. 15:451; State v. Vaccaro, 411 So.2d 415 (La.1982). It must also be established that an accused who makes a confession during a custodial interrogation was first advised of his constitutional rights as per Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and voluntarily and intelligently waived those rights. State v. Castillo, 389 So.2d 1307 (La.1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 922 , 101 S.Ct. 3159 , 69 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1981); State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La.App. 5th Cir.1990). * * * * * * The issue of whether a showing of voluntariness has been made is analyzed on a case by case basis with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The trial judge must consider the "totality of the circumstances" in deciding whether the confession is admissible. State v. Shepherd, 449 So.2d 1120, 1123 (La.App. 5th Cir.1984). The admissibility of a confession is in the first instance a question for the trial judge. His conclusions on the credibility and weight of testimony relating to the voluntariness of a confession are entitled to great weight and will not be overturned on appeal unless they are not supported by the evidence. State v. Benoit, 440 So.2d 129 (La.1983); State v. Weiland, ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Smith · 668 So. 2d 1260 - State v. Smith

2. “The fact of an intoxicated or drugged condition of the offender at the time of the commission of the crime is immaterial, except as follows: * * * * * * (2) Where the circumstances indicate that an intoxicated or drugged condition has precluded the presence of a specific criminal intent of special knowledge required in a particular crime, this fact constitutes a defense to a prosecution for that crime.”

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

3. “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.”

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