840 So. 2d 1271 - State v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the present case, the circumstances relied on by the court of appeal as proving intent simply do not exclude every reasonable doubt as to the intent element of simple burglary. Whether the entry was through a locked or an open door is of no significance to the intent issue. The finding of tools customarily used for break-ins also bears primarily on the conceded issue of unauthorized entry. The fact that the intruders were hiding when apprehended inside the house merely | ^indicates a consciousness of guilt of criminal trespass and does not necessarily indicate an intent to steal. The fact that relator’s brother had been told the police were looking for him “for another burglary” proves nothing as to relator’s intent to commit a theft or felony when he made the unauthorized entry here. There was no evidence before the jury as to relator’s lack of employment or past criminal record. The impeached credibility of relator’s brother does not supply affirmative evidence of guilt, but rather provides only a basis for an appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to disregard the particular testimony so that there is no probative value either way. Finally, the intermediate court’s observation that items belonging to Mrs. Vicks had been tampered with is an overstatement of the evidence.... Here, the prosecution attempted to prove its theory that relator and his brother had just broken into the house and were caught before they could get away with anything. On the other ha”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 So. 3d 879 - State v. Shelvin

2. “Although intent to commit a burglary is a question of fact, it need not be proved as a fact. It may be inferred from the circumstances. State v. Robinson, 29,488 (La.App.2d Cir.6/18/97), 697 So.2d 607 , writ denied, 1997-1845 (La.12/12/97), 704 So.2d 1200 . A taking is not required. State v. Wright, 36,635 (La.App.2d Cir.3/7/03), 840 So.2d 1271 . Displacement of the victim’s possessions may be indicative of the specific intent to commit a theft. State v. Bell, [42,394 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/5/07), 972 So.2d 1207 ]; State v. Wright, supra.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 105 So. 3d 246 - State v. Jones

3. ““[W]hen a court finds that the evidence was not sufficient to support a verdict for the crime charged, the discharge of the defendant is neither necessary nor proper when the evidence supports a conviction of a lesser and included offense which is a legislatively authorized responsive verdict.” State v. Wright, 36,635, p. 12 (La.App. 2 Cir. 3/7/03), 840 So.2d 1271,1279 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 85 So. 3d 821 - State v. Pittman