806 So. 2d 697 - State v. Temple’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “exceptional, which ... means that because of unusual circumstances this defendant is a victim of the legislature's failure to assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the culpability of the offender, the gravity of the offense and the circumstances of the case.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Pierre · State v. Francois

2. “[N]ot every Prieur violation mandates reversal. State v. Pardon, 97-248 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/15/97), 703 So.2d 50, 57 , writ denied, 97-2892 (La.3/20/98), 715 So.2d 1207 . Before a defendant can complain of a Prieur violation, he must first show prejudice. Id. In State v. Lee, 25,917 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/4/94), 637 So.2d 656, 662 , writ denied, 94-1451 (La.10/7/94), 644 So.2d 631 , the Second Circuit explained that "the rules of Prieur were not meant to be used as additional, technical procedures sacramental to a valid conviction" and noted that substantial compliance with Prieur is all that is required.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 915 So. 2d 365 - State v. Willis · 918 So. 2d 1186 - State v. Davis

3. “I’m going to advise you at this time that the witness may testify regarding the Defendant’s involvement in the commission of other offenses other than what he is on trial today. This testimony is to be considered only for a limited purpose. The sole purpose for which such evidence may be considered is to show guilty knowledge, absence of mistake or accident, intent, system or motive. Remember, the accused is on trial only for the offense charged. You may not find him guilty of this offense merely because he might have committed another offense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 164 So. 3d 891 - State v. Gatlin · 167 So. 3d 793 - State v. Robinson