State v. Trosclair’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e begin our discussion with an overview of the regulatory scheme of supervision and the statutory provisions governing this scheme, La.Rev.Stat, §§ 15:561 through 15:561.7, added by Acts 2006, No. 242, § 1, effective August 15, 2006, provide for supervised release of certain sex offenders who committed their crimes .upon children under thirteen years of age. In Section 561, the Legislature sets forth its findings associated with the enactment of the supervised release laws: Under Section 561,1, the supervised rer lease provisions apply to any person convicted, on or after the effective date pf the act, of a sex offense as defined in La.Rev.Stat. § 15:541, when the victim is under thirteen years of age. According to Section 561.3, supervised release is administered by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, division of probation and parole, and supervised release officers have the powers and duties of parole officers. Section 561.4 directs the trial court at sentencing as well as the Department of Public Safety and Corrections to inform the offender he will bé placed on supervised release and of the conditions of supervision. Section 561.6 directs the Department of Public Safety and Corrections to adopt rules necessary to implement these provisions, and Section 561,7 provides the penalties for failing to comply with the conditions of supervised release, which include fines up to three thousand dollars and imprisonment with hard labor from two to twenty years “witho”

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

2. “[B]ack on November the 9th,- 2015, this defendant, did fail to comply with the conditions of supervised release. State would show that back on September the 2nd, 2009, this defendant pled guilty to two counts of indecent behavior with a juvenile where the victim-in the case— one was eight and the other count, the victim was nine. On August the 26th, 2011, this defendant signed conditions of his supervised release. He was to remain on supervised release for life and this defendant is aware of that. One of his conditions stated that he would live and remain at liberty and refrain from engaging in any type pf criminal activity. State would be prepared to show that on November the 9th of 2015, that in the Fourteenth Judicial District down in Lake Charles, Louisiana this defendant pled guilty to failure to carry sex offender identification' card in violation of R.S. 14:1321J [sic], which is a violation of condition number eleven of the supervised release form to which he signed. The State would assert that this all occurred in Vernon Parish, State of Louisiana, and asks that all of the answers to discovery be made a part of my factual recitation.”

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

3. “These [seven] factors, however, are neither exhaustive nor dispositive; they only provide a framework for the analysis. [Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 97 , 123 S.Ct. 1140, 1149 , 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003) ]. Moreover, while the [United States] Supreme Court has not explained the relative weight to be afforded each factor, it has recognized that no one factor is determinative as they ‘often point in differing directions’ and has even cautioned that only the clearest proof will suffice to override legislative intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty. [Hudson, 522 U.S. at 100-01 , 118 S.Ct. 488 ] (quoting [Kennedy, 372 U.S. at 169 , 83 S.Ct. 554 ]); see also, Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361 , 117 S.Ct. 2072, 2082 , 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997). |18Ever conscious of these instructions, we examine each factor to ascertain its relevance herein.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 140 So. 3d 375 - Morales v. Parish of Jefferson