873 So. 2d 747 - State v. Haley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

169 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 171 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Aggravated burglary is defined by La. R.S. 14:60: Aggravated burglary is the unauthorized entering of any inhabited dwelling, or of any structure, water craft, or movable where a person is present, with the intent to commit a felony or any theft therein, if the offender: (1) Is armed with a dangerous weapon; or (2) After entering arms himself with a dangerous weapon; or (3) Commits a battery upon any person while in such place, or in entering or leaving such place.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Calhoun · State v. Gibbs

2. “Our state constitution prohibits excessive punishment. La. Const, art. I, § 20 (1974). The test imposed by the reviewing court in determining the ex-cessiveness of a sentence is two-pronged. First, the record must show that the trial court took cognizance of the criteria set fourth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The trial judge is not required to list every aggravating or mitigating circumstance so long as the record reflects that he adequately considered the guidelines of the article. State v. Smith, 483 So.2d 688 (La. 1983); State v. Gann, 40,058 (La. App.2d Cir.09/21/05), 911 So.2d 384 . The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions. Where the record clearly shows an adequate factual basis for the sentence imposed, remand is unnecessary even where there has not been full compliance with art. 894.1. State v. Landos, 419 So.2d 475 (La.1982); State v. Hampton, 38,017 (La.App.2d Cir.01/28/04), 865 So.2d 284 , writs denied, 2004-0834 (La.03/11/05), 896 So.2d 57 , 2004-2380 (La.06/03/05), 903 So.2d 452 . The important elements which should be considered are the defendant’s personal history (age, family ties, marital status, health, employment record), prior criminal record, seriousness of offense and the likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So.2d 1049 (La.1981); State v. \%Haley, 38,258 (La.App.2d Cir.04/22/04), 873 So.2d 747 , writ denied, 2004-2606 (La.06/24/05), 9”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 58 So. 3d 655 - State v. Stokes

3. “The extremely unlikely alternative hypothesis given by the defendant (that the co-defendants picked him up after the crime, but before arrest) is unbelievable, even with a willful suspension of disbelief. Such an unlikely event would have had to occur within the three- to four-minute span that the suspects’ vehicle was out of sight of the victims or police authorities. That two escaping criminals would stop and pick up a hitchhiker during the pursuit is a suggestion unworthy of belief. The trial court correctly found this crime was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gibbs