State v. Sedlock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “However, an offender's conduct is "justifiable, although otherwise criminal," when the "offender's conduct is reasonable discipline of minors by their parents." See La.R.S. 14:18(4). "Since `justification' defenses are not based on the nonexistence of any essential element of the offense, but rather on the circumstances which make the accused's conduct excusable on policy grounds, such defenses should be treated as affirmative defenses which the accused must establish by a preponderance of evidence." State v. Cheatwood, 458 So.2d 907, 910 (La.1984). State v. Miller, 98-1873, pp. 2-3 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99), 746 So.2d 118, 119 , writ denied, 99-3259 (La.5/5/00), 761 So.2d 541 . .... The Defendant cites State v. Schultz, 01-995 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/10/02) , 817 So.2d 202 , writ denied, 02-1320 (La.11/27/02), 831 So.2d 270 , for the proposition that medical treatment must be sought for injuries inflicted in order for a defendant to be found guilty of cruelty to juveniles. In Schultz, the defendant sprayed her daughter with pepper spray. The defendant contended she acted in self-defense. The fifth circuit concluded that the defendant did inflict pain upon her daughter. However, she did not inflict unjustifiable pain and suffering which was evidenced by the fact that the child did not seek medical treatment. The child was examined by her father, a physician, who determined that medical treatment was unnecessary. The court held that the state did not present sufficient evidence to ”

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

2. “For the offense of cruelty to juveniles, the trial court imposed the following sentence: "The Court is going to sentence him to two years in the parish jail. I'm going to suspend all but time served of that two years. I'm going to place him on supervised probation for the balance of that two-year period...." Rather than specify the period of probation, the trial court placed the Defendant on probation for "the balance of" the two-year period. In other words, the trial court placed the Defendant on probation for whatever time remained after the "time served" portion was deducted from the two years. Since the "time served" portion of the sentence was not specified, we find the trial court imposed an unspecified and indeterminate period of probation. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 893(A) provides in pertinent part: "The period of probation shall be specified and shall not be less than one year nor more than five years." Since the probation period imposed in the present case was not specified and is indeterminate, we find that the sentence imposed for cruelty to juveniles should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing specifying the period of probation in accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 893.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 256 So. 3d 1080 - State v. Henry

3. “`justification' defenses are not based on the nonexistence of any essential element of the offense, but rather on the circumstances which make the [defendant's] conduct excusable on policy grounds . . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 924 So. 2d 394 - Mouton v. Thomas