747 So. 2d 164 - State v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Based upon the physical evidence, the crime scene photographs, defendant's admission (that he picked up the 12 gauge shotgun and fired it in the direction of the victim's backside at close range from waist level as the victim was exiting the door), and defendant's pounding the table and telling the police that "no m_____r f_____r is going to come in my house and hit me," any rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that this shooting was not accidental, but rather one with the specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm. In returning a guilty verdict, it is obvious the majority of the jury concluded that the evidence proved the requisite element of specific intent for second degree murder. Once that conclusion was reached, it foreclosed the alternative theory of a manslaughter without specific intent based on the commission of the offense of illegal use of a weapon. This left the jurors with the remaining decision of determining whether the homicide should be reduced from second degree murder to manslaughter committed in sudden passion or heat of blood. It is obvious the majority of the jury concluded this homicide was not 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; or that, if there was such provocation, defendant's blood had actually cooled, or an average person's blood would have cooled, at the time the offense was commit”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 941 So. 2d 696 - State v. Johnson

2. “In reviewing the claim, this court must determine if a rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found the mitigating factors were not established by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Huls, 95-0541 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/29/96) ; 676 So.2d 160 , writ denied, 96-1734 (La.1/6/97); 685 So.2d 126 . |aIn an effort to establish that he shot his estranged wife and Deputy McIntosh in sudden passion or heat of blood, the defense emphasized that the Defendant found his wife, partially naked, having just engaged in sexual intercourse with her nineteen-year-old boyfriend. According to the Defendant, this was the provocation for the shootings and his actions after the shootings. [[Image here]] Neither the Defendant seeing his estranged wife with a boyfriend, [State v.] Sanders, [93-01] 648 So.2d 1272 , [cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1246 , 116 S.Ct. 2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996) ], nor disputes between spouses over their impending divorce or over-due money payments, Huls, 676 So.2d 160 , are sufficient provocation to reduce first degree murder to manslaughter.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 149 So. 3d 869 - State v. Cumbrera

3. “The jury’s verdict may also reflect that they also concluded there was no provocation for the shooting of [the estranged wife]. The acts of the Defendant leading up to the shooting of [the estranged wife] establish that the Defendant may have planned to commit a criminal act when he forcibly entered her house.... Neither the Defendant seeing his estranged wife with a boyfriend, nor disputes between spouses over their impending divorce or overdue money payments, are sufficient provocation to reduce first degree murder to manslaughter.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 16 So. 3d 482 - State v. Triggs