Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 614 SO2D 215 - State v. Jack

State v. Jack’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
February 1998
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Martinez-Villareal v. Arizona · 404 So. 2d 1205 - State v. Campbell · Martinez-Villareal v. Arizona · 414 So. 2d 1210 - State v. Howard · State v. Polkey

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

  1. “"The jurisprudence clearly indicates that to constitute an excessive sentence, this court must find that the penalty is so grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime as to shock our sense of justice or that the sentence makes no measurable contribution to acceptable penal goals and, therefore, is nothing more than needless imposition of pain and suffering. See State v. Campbell, 404 So.2d 1205 (La. 1981); State v. Everett, 530 So.2d 615 (La. App. 3d Cir.1988), writ denied 536 So.2d 1233 (La.1989). The trial judge is given wide discretion in imposing a sentence, and a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be deemed excessive in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Howard, 414 So.2d 1210, 1217 (La.1982)."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"The sentencing court is not required to follow the guidelines in imposing sentence but must only state for the record that it considered such. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 provides in part as follows: A. When the defendant has been convicted of a felony, the court shall consider the sentencing guidelines promulgated by the Louisiana Sentencing Commission in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed. However, no sentence shall be declared unlawful, inadequate, or excessive solely due to the failure of the court to impose a sentence in conformity with the sentencing guidelines of the commission."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Upon motion of a defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered when a remark or comment, made within the hearing of the jury by the judge, district attorney, or a court official, during the trial or in argument, refers directly or indirectly to: * * * * * * (2) Another crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible;”
    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.