740 So. 2d 675 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Finally, the defendant contends that the state did not prove specific intent. Specific criminal intent is defined as "that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act." La. R.S. 14:10(1). Specific criminal intent need not be proven as a fact, but may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction and the actions of the defendant. State v. Williamson, 27,871 (La.App. 2d Cir.4/3/96), 671 So.2d 1208 , writ denied, 96-1143 (La.10/4/96), 679 So.2d 1380 ; State v. Maxie, 93-2158 (La.4/10/95), 653 So.2d 526 ; State v. Johnson, 27,522 (La. App. 2d Cir.12/6/95), 665 So.2d 1237 . It is clear that the specific intent that is needed to support the defendant's conviction for first degree murder was established by the defendant taking a loaded assault rifle and shooting it multiple times into a house full of children, killing miraculously only one person. The defendant told the police he knew that the Cadillac containing the individuals who had shot at him earlier left the premises of the Johnson residence before he and Pickrom arrived with a loaded gun. The defendant admitted that he knew several children between the ages of 10 to 17 lived in that house. He also conceded that when he and Pickrom arrived at the house, no one was in the front yard, but he saw a light on inside of the house. The defendant clearly had specific intent. State v. Butler, 618 So.2d 572”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brown · State v. Scott

2. “[w]hen a person commits an act, having a specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon a certain person by the act, but instead kills another person by mistake or inadvertence, the law nonetheless holds him responsible for the death of that other person, and further holds that it is just as if the person had.... originally intended to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon the person actually killed.”

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

3. “The trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling on a challenge for cause; such rulings will be disturbed only when review of the entire voir dire reveals an abuse of discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 786 So. 2d 203 - State v. Williams