State v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “Defendant's Request for Jury Instruction No. 1 Voluntary intoxication is no defense to a crime unless the crime is one requiring specific intent. And then only under certain circumstances. If you belief [sic] that a drunken or intoxicated condition prevented the accused from being able to form the specific intent to commit a crime requiring specific intent, or if the evidence as a whole leaves you with a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused was able to have, and did, in fact, have a specific intent to commit the crime charged due to his drunkenness or intoxication, then you must give him the benefit of that doubt and find him not guilty of any crime requiring specific intent. State v. Harris, 708 So.2d 1169 (La. App. 1st Cir.1998); State v. Leroux, 641 So.2d 656 (La.App. 5th Cir.1994); La. R.S. 14:15. Defendant's Request for Jury Instruction No. 2 The term "intoxication" means a condition resulting from the drinking of alcoholic beverage which impairs a person's normal capacity to form a specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm. State v. Leroux, 641 So.2d 656 (La. App. 5th Cir.1994).”

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

2. “Regarding defenses. The fact that the defendant was in an intoxicated condition at the time of the commission of the crime is usually not a defense. However, where the circumstances indicate that the defendant voluntarily became intoxicated and that his intoxicated condition precluded or prevented the presence of a specific intent or special knowledge required in a particular crime this fact constitutes a defense to a prosecution for that crime. The defendant's plea of intoxication or drunkenness is a special defense and like any other defense must be proved by him to your satisfaction. Once the defense of voluntary intoxication is raised, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had a specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm. Thus, if you find that the defendant was in such an intoxicated condition that he did not have the specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm required to commit Second Degree Murder or the lesser offense of Manslaughter, you must find the defendant not guilty.”

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

3. “A homicide which would be murder under either Article 30 (first degree murder) or Article 30.1 (second degree murder), but the offense is committed in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection. Provocation shall not reduce a homicide to manslaughter if the jury finds that the offender's blood had actually cooled, or that an average person's blood would have cooled, at the time the offense was committed....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 771 So. 2d 874 - State v. Cummings