930 So. 2d 1039 - State v. Hebert’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. “Second degree murder is the killing of a human being when the offender has a specific intent to kill. LSA-R.S. 14:30.1 “Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act; for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended.” LSA-R.S. 14:27. To prove attempted second degree murder, the State must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant specifically intended to kill a human being and that he committed an overt act in furtherance of that goal. State v. Hebert, 05-1004, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/25/06), 930 So.2d 1039, 1046-47 . (citation omitted). Specific, intent to .in- flict great bodily harm, is sufficient to support a-murder conviction, but second degree attempted murder requires a specific intent to kill, Id. at 1047 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 190 So. 3d 426 - State v. Thibodeaux

2. “Defendant admitted that he stabbed 'the victim with a large butcher knife. Testimony of the eyewitnesses and the victim established that defendant attacked the victim as the victim was lying on the ground' and that he pursued the victim as the victim attempted to flee. The- victim- testified that he was stabbed in the back and that- he sustained •& broken rify as well as liver and lung damage in. the incident, all of which caused him to seek emergency medical treatment and to stay in the hospital for twenty-four days. We find, therefore, that any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, could have found that the state proved the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See La.C.Cr,P. art. 821.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 190 So. 3d 426 - State v. Thibodeaux

3. “The admissibility of evidence in a bench trial is different from the requirements in jury trials, because a judge by virtue of training and knowledge of the law is capable of disregarding any impropriety. State v. Anderson, 02-273 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/30/02) , 824 So.2d 517, 521 , writ denied, 02-2519 (La.6/27/03), 847 So.2d 1254 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 61 So. 3d 747 - State v. Langley