State v. Craig’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “A violation of La. R.S. 14:62, simple burglary, occurs when a person enters into a structure (a vehicle is explicitly included) without authority and with the specific intent to commit a felony or theft | Ti,therein. State v. Robinson, 29,-488 (La.App. 2d Cir. 06/18/97), 697 So.2d 607 ; State v. Mitchell, 96-207 (La.App. 3d Cir. 10/09/96), 684 So.2d 6 . Simple burglary has substantial inchoate or incomplete elements, i.e., an unauthorized entering of a vehicle with the intent to commit a theft therein. If the intent is present, an actual theft does not have to be consummated. In this respect, simple burglary is also an attempted theft. [[Image here]] Whether an actor is charged with attempted theft or simple burglary is within the discretion of the prosecuting authority. That the prosecution could have chosen to charge defendant with attempted theft is of no moment. It is not unusual that an accused’s conduct falls within the definition of more than one criminal statute with significant differences in penalties. The district attorney has the sole discretion to choose under which law he will prosecute. See United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 , 99 S.Ct. 2198 , 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979); La. R.S. 14:4; La.C.Cr.P. art. 61; State v. Walters, 440 So.2d 115 (La.1983); State v. Flores, 27,736 (La.App. 2d Cir. 02/28/96), 669 So.2d 646 . [[Image here]] ... While defendant poses an interesting question, i.e., whether the theft or attempted theft of an entire movable constitutes a thef”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 105 So. 3d 246 - State v. Jones

2. “Defendant further argues that he could not have committed a simple burglary because the evidence only showed that he was trying to steal the vehicle, not commit a felony or theft “therein. ” While defendant poses an interesting question, i.e., whether the theft or attempted theft of an entire movable constitutes a theft therein, the fact remains that if someone is inside a vehicle attempting to steal that vehicle, his intent is to commit a theft therein, not only of the contents but of the vehicle itself. See State v. Augustus, 93-406 (La.App. 5th Cir. 02/23/94), 633 So.2d 783 ; State v. Pierce, 450 So.2d 730 (La.App, 5th Cir. 1984).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 207 So. 3d 589 - State v. Fontenot