831 So. 2d 862 - State v. Dunn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 32 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It would be patently unjust to conclude from this record that the defendant failed to prove a fact which the defense was not called upon to prove at the time of the trial. Because the burden of proof of establishing mental retardation is imposed on the defendant, the defendant must be afforded the opportunity to meet that burden in a case such as this in which an expert testified without contradiction Dunn is mentally retarded and his IQ is very close to that which would indicate mental retardation. We reiterate that a defendant is not entitled to a post- Atkins hearing regarding mental retardation merely upon request. ... Because the record contains sufficient evidence in the form of Dr. Zimmerman's uncontradicted expert opinion [that Dunn was mentally retarded], there exists reasonable ground to doubt whether defendant is mentally retarded [and this court must] remand for a hearing on the issue of whether or not Dunn is in fact mentally retarded.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lorraine, 2006-T-0100 (12-14-2007) · 851 So. 2d 921 - State v. Tate

2. “The code . . . provides for a contradictory hearing, with LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 647 stating: The issue of the defendant's mental capacity to proceed [or in this case, the issue of whether or not the defendant is mentally retarded under applicable standards] shall be determined by the court in a contradictory hearing. The report of the sanity commission is admissible in evidence at the hearing, and members of the sanity commission may be called as witnesses by the court, the defense, or the district attorney. Regardless of who calls them as witnesses, the members of the commission are subject to cross-examination by the defense, by the district attorney, and by the court. Other evidence pertaining to the defendant's mental capacity to proceed may be introduced at the hearing by the defense and by the district attorney. Williams, 01-1650 at p. 30, 831 So.2d at 859 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 936 So. 2d 89 - State v. Turner · 831 So. 2d 835 - State v. Williams

3. “but there has been no consensus on a substitute term. There have been changes of the term in the past, and considering that people with mental retardation and others in the field are struggling to identify a new term for the disability, there is likely to be a change in the future. See AMERICAN ASSOCIATION ON MENTAL RETARDATION, MENTAL RETARDATION: DEFINITION, CLASSIFICATION, AND SYSTEMS OF SUPPORTS 5 (10th ed.2002).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 831 So. 2d 835 - State v. Williams · 878 So. 2d 933 - Scott v. State