State v. Odoms’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “• the trial court should have applied La. Ch. C. art. 857(A) and (B), which allowed minors who commit any one of eight enumerated crimes when they were at least 14 years of age to be sentenced to confinement until age 31; • since Odoms was 14 years old at the time of the offense, under La. Ch. C. art. 857(B), the maximum sentence to which he could have been subjected was 17 years, as he was 17 years from age 31 when he committed the murder; and • even though this amended version of La. Ch. C. art. 857 was not in existence at the time Odoms committed the crime, the state asked the First Circuit to retroactively apply the law so that Odoms could be imprisoned for 17 years. The First Circuit rejected the state’s request, ruling that: • to retroactively apply La. Ch. C. art. 857(B) would violate ^constitutional prohibitions 10 against ex post facto laws; • because the law in existence at the time of Odoms’ crime authorized imprisoning him only until his 21st birthday, to apply art. 857(B) would increase Odoms’ original sentencing exposure by 10 years; • La. Ch. C. art. 857(C)(2) could be retroactively applied, as this particular provision would not “redefine criminal conduct or increase the penalty by which it is punished. It simply allow[ed] the courts to impose the term of incarceration that could have been imposed at the time of the offense, had the defendant not avoided prosecution at that time”; • had Odoms been prosecuted at age 14, he could have been imprisoned for seven y”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. I.C.S.

2. “(2) An adult who is charged with an offense committed at the time he was a child for which the time limitation for the institution of prosecution pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure Article 571 has not lapsed and for which he was not subject to prosecution as an adult due to his age at the time the offense was committed shall be prosecuted as an adult in the appropriate court exercising criminal jurisdiction. If convicted, he shall be committed to the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections to be confined in secure placement for a period of time as determined by the court not to exceed the maximum amount of confinement he could have been ordered to serve had he been adjudicated for the offense as a child at the time the offense was committed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Mock

3. “'Child' means any person under the age of twenty-one, including an emancipated minor, who commits a delinquent act before attaining seventeen years of age.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Mock