760 So. 2d 506 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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. “To prove that a defendant is a habitual offender, the state must establish by competent evidence the prior felony convictions and that defendant is the same person who was convicted of the prior felonies. State v. Chaney, 423 So.2d 1092 (La.1982); State v. Bailey, 97-302 (La.App. 5 Cir.4/28/98), 713 So.2d 588 , writ denied, 98-1458 (La.10/30/98), 723 So.2d 971 . The state may establish this by various means, such as the testimony of witnesses to prior crimes, expert testimony matching fingerprints of the accused with those in the record of prior proceedings or photographs contained in a duly authenticated record. State v. Bailey, supra; State v. Brown, 514 So.2d 99 (La.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 1754 , 100 L.Ed.2d 216 (1988). Additionally, this court has held that testimony comparing a defendant's current fingerprints with those found on prior arrest records is sufficient to prove that the defendant was the person convicted of a prior felony. State v. Hollins, 99-278 (La.App. 5 Cir.8/31/99), 742 So.2d 671 ; State v. Bell, 97-1134 (La. App. 5 Cir.2/25/98), 709 So.2d 921, 926 , writ denied, 98-0792 (La.9/16/98), 721 So.2d 477 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 776 So. 2d 1212 - State v. Baker

2. “One of the basic principles universally applied by courts in testing constitutionality is the presumption of constitutionality. In the application of this principle a trial court considering whether the minimum sentence prescribed by the legislature for the particular crime committed by a defendant would be unconstitutional if applied to a particular defendant may do so only if there is substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of constitutionality. The trial court may not depart from the legislatively mandated minimum simply because of some subjective impression or feeling about the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 776 So. 2d 1265 - State v. Durant