754 So. 2d 408 - State v. West’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defendant has not set forth facts sufficient to sustain a defense of mistake of law. In order for the defendant to assert this affirmative defense, he must prove that he reasonably relied on the act of the legislature in repealing an existing criminal provision, or in otherwise purporting to make the offender's conduct lawful, or that he relied on a final judgment of a competent court of last resort that a provision making the conduct in question criminal was unconstitutional. The only acts of the legislature at issue here are LSA-R.S. 14:95.1, which criminalizes a defendant's conduct, and LSA-R.S. 15:572, which directs the Department of Corrections to inform the pardonee of his pardon and that his citizenship has been restored. LSA-R.S. 15:572 merely informs the pardonee of what has taken place by operation of law. The statute does not repeal an existing criminal provision, nor does it otherwise purport to make the offender's conduct lawful. Contrary to the defendant's argument, these statutes are not conflicting, since LSA-R.S. 15:572(D) restores the rights of citizenship subject to the limitations of those rights imposed by LSA-R.S. 14:95.1. See State v. Wiggins, supra . The defendant's affirmative defense of mistake of law is based solely on his interpretation of a letter from a state agency.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 847 So. 2d 53 - State v. Moore

2. “Ignorance of the provision of this Code or of any criminal statute is not a defense to any criminal prosecution. However, mistake of law which results in the lack of intention that consequences which are criminal shall follow, is a defense to a criminal prosecution under the following circumstances: (1) Where the offender reasonably relied on the act of the legislature in repealing an existing criminal provision, or in otherwise purporting to make the offender's conduct lawful; or (2) Where the offender reasonably relied on a final judgment of a competent court of last resort that a provision making the conduct in question criminal was unconstitutional.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 847 So. 2d 53 - State v. Moore