State v. Arnold’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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Relator was sentenced to ten years at hard labor on the charge of attempted manslaughter and seven years at hard labor on the charge of aggravated escape, with one-half of the sentence for manslaughter to run currently [sic] to the aggravated escape sentence. In our original writ decision, we vacated the conviction and sentence for the less severely punishable offense (and the less severe sentence), aggravated escape, and affirmed Relator's conviction and sentence of attempted manslaughter. In Butler, 558 So.2d 552, 553-554 , the supreme court explained: To remedy a violation of double jeopardy, this court has followed a procedure of vacating the conviction and sentence of the less severely punishable offense, and affirming the conviction and sentence of the more severely punishable offense. State v. Doughty, 379 So.2d 1088 (La.1980). In another case, this court followed the same procedure by vacating the conviction and sentence of the less severely punishable offense, but vacated the sentence of the affirmed conviction and remanded for resentencing. State v. Dubaz, 468 So.2d 554 (La. 1985). Although slightly different, these procedures are consistent in that each requires the court to vacate the conviction and sentence for the less severely punishable offense. In Dubaz , the court merely added the step of vacating the sentence of the affirmed conviction and remanding for re-sentencing. Further, resentencing was not an option available in Doughty because of the due process co”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 806 So. 2d 854 - State v. Wilson

2. “has been adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court and was explained by the court in State v. Steele, 387 So.2d 1175, 1177 (La.1980), as follows: If the evidence required to support a finding of guilt of one crime would also have supported conviction of the other, the two are the same offense under a plea of double jeopardy, and a defendant can be placed in jeopardy for only one. The test depends on the evidence necessary for conviction, not all the evidence introduced at trial ... The”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 806 So. 2d 854 - State v. Wilson