702 So. 2d 377 - State v. LeBlanc’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As amended in 1990 (La.Acts, No. 755, § 1), La.C.Cr.P. art. 648A provides in pertinent part: “The | (¡criminal prosecution shall [not] be resumed unless the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant does not have the mental capacity to proceed.” In State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La. 10/4/96), 679 So.2d 1365, 1366 , the Louisiana Supreme Court declared: The Supreme Court’s decision in Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 , 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) makes clear that La.C.Cr.P. art. 648(A), as amended by 1990 La. Acts. No. 755, violates the Due Process Clause to the extent that it requires the defendant in a criminal prosecution to prove his incapacity to proceed only by a clear preponderance of the evidence, (citations omitted). The defendant’s lunacy hearing was held September 27, 1994 when La.C.Cr.P. art. 648(A) required clear and convincing evidence to prove incompetency. The record does not show what standard the trial court applied. There is a presumption of regularity in judicial proceedings. State v. Harris, 93-1098 (La. 1/5/96), 665 So.2d 1164 ; State v. Davis, 559 So.2d 114 (La. 1990). We therefore presume that the clear and convincing standard in La. C.Cr.P. art. 648 was applied. However, the defendant may not have met the preponderance of the evidence standard. We therefore remand this case for a determination by the trial court as to whether the defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not competent to proceed on”

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