964 So. 2d 911 - State v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although an indicia of insanity at the time of the offense may be a relevant consideration, such cannot be the sole determinative factor in deciding whether a defendant may change his plea pursuant to Article 561. The language of Article 561 does not obligate the defendant to prove his insanity at the time of the offense to change his plea. Further, the defense of insanity at the time of the offense is ultimately an affirmative defense which must be decided by the factfinder at trial. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 652.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. STATE of Louisiana v. Calvin Louis NOEL, III AKA Calvin Noel · 181 So. 3d 223 - State v. Noel

2. “| uThe defendant may withdraw a plea of “not guilty” and enter a plea of “not guEty and not guilty by reason of insani ty,” within ten days after arraignment. Thereafter, the court- may, for good cause shown, allow such a change of plea at any time before the commencement of ■the trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. STATE of Louisiana v. Calvin Louis NOEL, III AKA Calvin Noel · 181 So. 3d 223 - State v. Noel

3. “THE COURT: Now, your -discovery of the extent of his mental illness and his medication history was only completed when you got these reports; is that right? MR. BROWN: Yes, Your Honor. But it’s been ongoing with Mr. Noel, his mental illness. We had him examined by a doctor just last week. It’s been fluctuating during my representation of him. THE COURT: Because the timing of the motion is why I’m asking that question of why the motion was filed late, the motion to change his plea. The extent of the mental illness was not known by you until— MR. BROWN: The extent was known, Your Honor, however, in my discussions with Mr. Noel it appears to have worsened again. The state then voiced its objection based on the timeliness of the motion: MR. SIMON: Your Honor, the State would object based, on timeliness of this motion to change his plea from not guilty to not guilty by reason of insanity. And just for the record, Your Honor, this case has been pending since May 6th of 2011, and the defendant was arraigned on May 23th of 2011. [[Image here]] Your Honor, also, the State would argue that the sanity commission was em-panelled and the Court found the defendant competent to proceed back on May of — 23rd of 2013, and we’ve 11flsince had another trial date set since the May 23rd hearing back in July. And the State argues that if there was going to be a change in the plea to not guilty to not guilty by reason of insanity, it should have been done way before October 17th of this year. And t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 So. 3d 223 - State v. Noel