747 So. 2d 793 - State v. Duvall’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
October 2014
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · 628 So. 2d 1116 - State v. Foret · 725 So. 2d 1291 - State v. Juluke
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.
“Upon review, the supreme court [in State v. Juluke, 98-0341, pp. 4-5 (La.1/8/99), 725 So.2d 1291 ], reversed the Fourth Circuit, noting: The Jackson standard also does not provide a defendant with a means of splitting alternative and inconsistent defenses in different forums, raising one defense before the jury and when that fails, a second defense [presupposing] a different set of facts in an appellate court conducting sufficiency review under Jackson and [La.Code Crim.P.] art. 821(E). [State v. Juluke, 98-341, pp. 4-5 (La.1/8/99), 725 So.2d 1291, 1293 ]. [[Image here]] To permit him to argue the defense on appeal would violate the above holding of Juluke and allow him the unfair advantage of urging a defense that the State had no reason to challenge. [[Image here]] ^Defendant’s defense on appeal is inconsistent with the defense that he presented at trial because a defense that a shooting was committed in sudden passion or heat of blood is inconsistent with a defense that a shooting was accidental. In the former instance, an intent to fire the weapon exists, while in the latter instance, no such intent is present. [[Image here]] For the foregoing reasons, the argument that the offense was manslaughter, rather than second degree murder, is not properly before this court and will not be considered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Upon review, the supreme court [in State v. Juluke, 98-0341, pp. 4-5 (La.1/8/99), 725 So.2d 1291 ], reversed the Fourth Circuit, noting: The Jackson standard also does not provide a defendant with a means of splitting alternative andj^inconsistent defenses in different forums, raising one defense before the jury and when that fails, a second defense [presupposing] a different set of facts in an appellate court conducting sufficiency review under Jackson and La.C.Cr.P. art. 821(E). Juluke , 98-0341 at pp. 4-5, 725 So.2d at 1293 . In the instant assignment of error, defendant attempts to present a defense both alternative to and inconsistent with the defense he presented in the trial court. To permit him to argue the defense on appeal would violate the above holding of Juluke and allow him the unfair advantage of urging a defense that the State had no reason to challenge. [[Image here]] Defendant’s defense on appeal is inconsistent with the defense that he presented at trial because a defense that a shooting was committed in sudden passion or heat of blood is inconsistent with a defense that a shooting was accidental. In the former instance, an intent to fire the weapon exists, while in the latter instance, no such intent is present. [[Image here]] For the foregoing reasons, the argument that the offense was manslaughter, rather than second degree murder, is not properly before this court and will not be considered.”
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.