State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Generally, arguments do not suffice to reduce.a murder to manslaughter. State v. Miller, 98-642. (La.App, 3 Cir. 10/28/98), 720 So.2d 829 , writ denied, 98-3119 (La. 5/14/99), 741 So.2d 659 . Additionally, ... “[m]ere words or gestures, however offensive or insulting, will not reduce homicide from murder to manslaughter.” State v. Mitchell, 39,202, p. 12 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/15/04), 889 So.2d 1257, 1263 , writ denied, 05-132 (La. 4/29/05), 901 So.2d 1063 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Guillory · 941 So. 2d 696 - State v. Johnson

2. “Specific intent is the state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act. La. R.S. 14:10(1); State v. Ellis, 28,282 (La.App. 2d Cir.06/26/96), 677 So.2d 617 , writ denied, 96-1991 (La.02/21/97), 688 So.2d 521 . As a state of mind, specific intent need not be proved as a fact; it may be inferred from the circumstances and the actions of the defendant. State v. Kahey, 436 So.2d 475 (La.1983); State v. Murray, 36,137 (La.App. 2d Cir.08/29/02), 827 So.2d 488 , writ denied, 02-2634 (La. 09/05/03), 852 So.2d 1020 ; State v. Ellis, supra . The discharge of a firearm at close range and aimed at a person is indicative of a specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon that person. State v. Murray, supra ; State v. Johnson, 27,522 (La.App. 2d Cir.12/06/95), 665 So.2d 1237 . The determination of whether the requisite intent is present is a question for the trier of fact. State v. Huizar, 414 So.2d 741 (La.1982).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 968 So. 2d 1135 - State v. Taylor

3. “We find no provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control. An extremely intoxicated and not visibly armed man .struck- defendant, using only his fist. There was no evidence .of previous “bad.blood,” threats, or any other circumstances that would increase the significance of the simple act of striking. We cannot conclude an average person would be so inflamed by the strike as to lose his self control and cool reflection in the way this defendant did.”

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