755 So. 2d 311 - State v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 3 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defendant does not contest that he fled the police station during booking. He argues, instead, that he did not “escape” because he was never in the “lawful custody” of the Opelousas City Police Department. Specifically, Defendant contends that his arrest on the remaining after being forbidden charge was illegal because he was arrested on a public sidewalk. “Simple escape” is defined in La.R.S. 14:110(A)(1) (emphasis added) as: The intentional departure, under circumstances wherein human life is not endangered, of a person imprisoned, committed, or detained from a place where such person is legally confined, from a designated area of a place where such person is legally confined, or from the lawful custody of any law enforcement officer or officer of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections. The Reporter’s Comment (citations omitted) discusses the “lawful custody” requirement as follows: As long as the arrest and commitment are “legal” any attempt to escape is a crime, despite the guilt or innocence of the culprit. But if the warrant of arrest or commitment is void, the prisoner is not liable for escaping. However an informality or irregularity in the process of commitment is not justification to escape. [[Image here]] On May 12, 1996, Officer David Ze-rangue was on security patrol outside the Manhattan Lounge in Opelousas. In the early morning hours, Officer Ze-rangue observed the owner of the nightclub refuse to admit Defendant because Defendant was wearing a bandana ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mesa v. Prejean · 2 So. 3d 1187 - State v. Smith

2. “[t]he intentional departure, under circumstances wherein human life is not endangered, of a person imprisoned, committed, or detained from a place where such person is legally confined, from a designated area of a place where such person is legally confined, or from the lawful custody of any law enforcement officer or officer of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hood