746 So. 2d 95 - State v. Hester’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably 810 So. 2d 901 - Puryear v. State (2002), 821 So. 2d 60 - State v. Esteen (2002)
73 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Bruton v. United States · Sullivan v. Louisiana · 603 So. 2d 739 - State v. Lobato · 118 S. Ct. 335 - Gens v. Federal Deposit Insurance · 664 So. 2d 94 - State v. Johnson
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit the imposition of excessive punishment. A sentence is considered excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the offense or imposes needless and purposeless pain and suffering. Even a sentence which falls within statutory limits may be excessive under certain circumstances. Once imposed, a sentence will not be set aside absent a showing of manifest abuse of the trial court's wide discretion to sentence within statutory limits.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. King · State v. Berkeley“If the defendant is convicted of two or more offenses based on the same act or transaction, or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, the terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively. Other sentences shall be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that some or all of them be served concurrently.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This matter is now before the before the Court for purposes of sentencing. The Court takes notice that the Defendant, Mr. Qutoum, was convicted by a jury of his peers for the crime of aggravated arson on the 26th day of January in the year 2001. In imposing sentence, the Court has taken into consideration the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Article 894.1 and further the following factors. The Court notes that the Defendant has been convicted of a felony. The Court further notes the nature of the crime for which he has been convicted, that is aggravated arson. The Court notes that the offender created a risk of death or great bodily harm to other persons and particularly the Court notes that there was a minor child located within the building wherein the fire took place who had a respiratory problem for which the Defendant was aware of. There were other persons living within that area. The Court is of the opinion that there is an undue risk that if any suspended sentence were imposed that it would depreciate the seriousness of the Defendant's conduct. The Court further notes that there is a mandatory minimum of two years at hard labor which cannot be suspended, neither is there probation or parole available. The Court is of the opinion that the Defendant is in need of correctional treatment in an institution under the supervision of the State of Louisiana; that any lessor [sic] sentence than which I will now impose would depreciate the seriousness of the Defendant”
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.