633 So. 2d 147 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2019
12 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 · 448 So. 2d 676 - State v. Captville · 383 So. 2d 369 - State v. Williams · State v. Procell · 418 So. 2d 547 - State v. Savoy
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may properly be considered as a circumstance mitigating against specific intent.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Hansbro · State v. Wommack“so remote and unlikely that it failed to provide jurors a hypothesis of innocence they could not reasonably reject.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The state's case for specific intent homicide rested, however, on more than the inferences arising from the conflicting statements given by the defendant. The prosecution's physical evidence directly contradicted the final exculpatory account of an accidental shooting offered by the defendant at trial. Compare State v. Savoy , [ 418 So.2d 547 (La.1982) ]. The findings of the pathologist gave jurors a rational basis for concluding that the gun could not have discharged in the way that the defendant described and that considerable, deliberate care had been taken to position the weapon exactly in the center of the victim's forehead and precisely level just before it fired. From that objective evidence, and without any other evidence of his intent but the defendant's discredited version of an accidental shooting, jurors could rationally infer that he fired a bullet through the brain of his victim with the specific intent to kill her. Cf., State v. Williams , 383 So.2d 369 (La.1980) ; State v. Procell , 365 So.2d 484 (La.1978).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Andrews
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.