Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 745 SO2D 166 - State v. Perez

State v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · 523 So. 2d 1305 - State v. Mussall · 277 So. 2d 126 - State v. Prieur · State v. Jacobs · 445 So. 2d 1198 - State v. Wright

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

  1. “In Louisiana, a legal presumption exists that a defendant is sane at the time of the offenses. La. R.S. 15:432. To rebut the presumption of sanity and avoid criminal responsibility, defendant has the burden of proving the affirmative defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. La.C.Cr.P. art. 652. Criminal responsibility is not negated by the mere existence of a mental disease or defect. To be exempted of criminal responsibility, defendant must show he suffered a mental disease or mental defect which prevented him from distinguishing between right and wrong with reference to the conduct in question. La. R.S. 14:14; State v. Williams, 346 So.2d 181 (La.1977). The determination of sanity is a factual matter. All the evidence, including expert and lay testimony, along with the defendant's conduct and action, should be reserved for the fact finder to establish whether the defendant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the offense. State v. Bibb, 626 So.2d 913 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1993), writ denied, 93-3127 (La.9/16/94); 642 So.2d 188 ; State v. Claibon, 395 So.2d 770 (La.1981). Lay testimony pertaining to defendant's actions, both before and after the crime, may provide the fact finder with a rational basis for rejecting unanimous medical opinion that the defendant was legally insane at the time of the offense. State v. Peters, supra ; State v. Claibon, supra . In reviewing a claim for insufficiency of evidence in an action whe”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “chronic paranoid schizophrenic” (Dr. Kenneth Ritter); “atypical psychosis ... delusional disorder” (Dr. Raphael Salcedo);”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “psychotic disorder similar to schizophrenia” (Dr. Sarah Deland); and”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.