879 So. 2d 1276 - State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 53 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 960 So. 2d 290 - State v. LONZO · 991 So. 2d 116 - State v. Armstard

2. “The changing nature of juvenile crime, however, has engendered changes in the nature of the juvenile delinquency adjudication which have blurred the distinction between juvenile and adult procedures. The Children's Code now grants to juveniles adjudicated in juvenile court proceedings essentially all rights guaranteed to criminal defendants by the federal and state constitutions, except the right to trial by jury. La. Ch. C. Ann. art. 808 (West, 1995). Additionally, the Louisiana Legislature has, with recent amendments to the Children's Code, blurred the distinction between the juvenile and adult court systems. Juvenile delinquency cases involving crimes of violence as defined by LSA-RS 14:2(13) are open to the public, which essentially destroys the confidentiality of certain juvenile proceedings. See La. Ch. C. Ann. art. 407(A), amended by 1994 La. Acts 120 . The Habitual Offender Law provides that juvenile adjudications for drug offenses or crimes of violence, as defined by LSA-RS 15:529.1, may be used to enhance subsequent felony offenses. LSA-RS 15:529.1 (West Supp., 1998). Prior to this change, juvenile adjudications were sealed and did not follow an individual into adulthood. Consequently then, the once heralded distinctions between juvenile and adult proceedings in this state are fast diminishing, and are further accelerated by the statute currently before us. The issue now becomes how much of the unique nature of the juvenile procedures can be eroded before due proces”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. In Re State Ex Rel. AJ · 27 So. 3d 247 - State ex rel. A.J.

3. “following Apprendi there are two reasonable schools of thought on whether juvenile adjudications, in which the juvenile did not have the right to a jury trial, can properly be characterized as `prior convictions' for felony sentence enhancement purposes.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 152 Cal. App. 4th 1205 - People v. Nguyen · 146 Cal. App. 4th 1332 - People v. Nguyen