775 So. 2d 52 - State v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions. “Reasonable suspicion” to stop is something less than the probable cause required for an arrest, and the reviewing court must look to the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether the detaining officer had sufficient facts within his knowledge to justify an infringement of the suspect’s rights. State v. Littles, 98-2517, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/15/99), 742 So.2d 735, 737 ; State v. Clay, 97-2858, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/17/99), 731 So.2d 414, 416 , writ denied, 99-0969 (La.9/17/99), 747 So.2d 1096 . Evidence derived from an unreasonable stop, i.e., seizure, will be excluded from trial. State v. Benjamin, 97-3065, p. 3 (La.12/1/98), 722 So.2d 988, 989 ; State v. Tyler, 98-1667, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/24/99), 749 So.2d 767, 770 . In assessing the reasonableness of an investigatory stop, the court must balance the need for the stop against the invasion of privacy that it entails. See State v. Harris, 99-1434, pp. 2-3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/8/99), 744 So.2d 160, 162 . The totality of the circumstances must be considered in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists. State v. Oliver, 99-1585, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/22/99), 752 So.2d 911, 914 ; State v. Mitchell, 98-1129, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/3/99), 731 So.2d 319, 326 . The detaining off”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 151 So. 3d 756 - State v. Fields · 791 So. 2d 725 - State v. Mayberry

2. “La. Const. art. I, § 13 recognizes the right to the assistance of counsel at every stage of the proceedings against a person accused of a crime. State v. White , 325 So.2d 584 , 585 (La.1976). Likewise, the constitutional right to the assistance of counsel provided by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution mandates the right, unless waived, to the assistance of counsel at every critical stage of the proceedings, including an initial or deferred sentencing. McConnell v. Rhay , 393 U.S. 2 , 89 S.Ct. 32 , 21 L.Ed.2d 2 (1968). Unless a defendant has made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel, any sentence imposed in the absence of counsel is invalid and must be set aside. State v. Williams , 374 So.2d 1215 , 1217 (La.1979). 9”

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

3. “The purpose of probation is the promotion of a defendant’s rehabilitation by allowing him to reintegrate into society without confinement. State v. Clark, 391 So.2d 1174, 1177 (La.1980); State v. Davis, 375 So.2d 69, 73 (La.1979). “It holds no promise and serves no | mpurpose if the conditions are so harsh that the probationer is destined for failure at the outset.” State v. Carey, 392 So.2d 443, 444 (La.1981). This includes financial conditions. See Carey; State v. Sartain, 571 So.2d 192 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1990). Such excessively harsh financial conditions of probation will be stricken by appellate courts. Carey; Sartain.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 27 So. 3d 1011 - State v. Langlinais