State v. Mills’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. “Our Supreme Court recently addressed the jurisprudentially created “lustful disposition” exception to La. Code Evid. art. 404(B). In State v. Kennedy, 2000-1554 (La.4/3/01), 803 So.2d 916 , the defendant was charged with the rape of a child under the age of twelve. The State sought to introduce evidence of the defendant’s unadjudicated rape of another young girl allegedly committed sixteen years earlier. The alleged victim of the earlier crime testified at the Prieur hearing. The trial court found the testimony admissible, noting that State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), 718 So.2d 960 , held that “lustful disposition” evidence may be relevant to prove the element of specific intent. The Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, granted the defen dant’s writ application, and reversed the trial court, stating that “[ejvidenee of “lustful disposition” is not admissible unless it is to prove some element of the charged offense, like specific intent, (citation omitted). Since specific intent is not at issue in this case, the evidence is not admissible to prove the Defendant’s bad character, which is prohibited.” The Supreme Court granted the State’s writ application 2 , and affirmed the ruling of the Fifth Circuit. The Court explained that the “lustful disposition” exception to Article 404 B was recognized in our jurisprudence as early as 1903, when it was accepted that evidence of prior sex crimes against the prosecuting victim is admissible under an exception to the general rule excludin”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 830 So. 2d 304 - State v. Morgan