State v. Lavigne’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Generally, the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is a matter more properly addressed in an application for post conviction relief filed in the trial court where a full evidentiary hearing can be conducted. State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729 (La.1984); State v. Johnson, 557 So.2d 1030 (La.App. 4th Cir.1990); State v. Reed, 483 So.2d 1278 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986). Only if the record discloses sufficient evidence to rule on the merits of the claim do the interests of judicial economy justify consideration of the issues on appeal. State v. Seiss, 428 So.2d 444 (La.1983); State v. Ratcliff, 416 So.2d 528 (La.1982); State v. Garland, 482 So.2d 133 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); State v. Landry, 499 So.2d 1320 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986). The defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is to be assessed by the two part test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Fuller, 454 So.2d 119 (La.1984). The defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defendant. Counsel’s performance is ineffective when it can be shown that he made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed to the defen dant by the Sixth Amendment. Strickland, supra at 686 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 . Counsel’s deficient performance mil have prejudiced the defendant if he shows that the errors were so serious as to deprive him of a fair trial. To carry his burden, the defendant “must s”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 680 So. 2d 1253 - State v. Gonzales · State v. Echols

2. “introduction of statements objected to as hearsay which are merely corroborative and cumulative of other testimony presented by the state is harmless error.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 696 So. 2d 144 - State v. Pendelton · 702 So. 2d 1194 - State v. Labostrie

3. “Appellant was seen acting in an irate manner. The small pipe found in his pocket is the type commonly used for smoking cocaine, and it contained a residue which proved to be cocaine. Here, guilty knowledge can be inferred from the appellant's actions prior to his arrest, from his dominion and control of the pipe commonly used with drugs, and from the residue of cocaine found in the pipe. Unlike the appellant in Trahan who claimed no knowledge of the drugs found in his trailer, appellant was in possession of the pipe containing the drug, and the only reasonable interpretation is that he knew the pipe contained cocaine residue. His claim is without merit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 792 So. 2d 117 - State v. Jones