State v. Rogers’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. “In State v. Hughes, 03-420 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/31/03) , 865 So.2d 853 , writ denied, 04-663 (La. 9/24/04), 882 So.2d 1165 , the maximum sentence of five years imposed on a conviction for negligent homicide was found not to be excessive even though Hughes was a first time felony offender and the mother of four children. In that case, Hughes attempted to commit suicide by driving at a high rate of speed into the path of an oncoming pick-up truck. The driver of the pick-up was killed. This court stated: The trial court cited the applicable factors set forth in La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1, noted Defendant’s lack of a criminal record and letters of support in her favor; but, concluded Defendant’s “wanton and reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others ... dictates a sentence that fits the nature of this offense.” The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing this Defendant to the five-year maximum term of imprisonment. Id. at 860. In State v. Gregrich, 99-178 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99) , 745 So.2d 694 , this court affirmed a sentence of three years imposed on a conviction for negligent homicide. Gregrich, who was legally intoxicated at the time, drove his car left of center and hit an oncoming car head on, killing the driver. In State v. Clark, 529 So.2d 1353 (La.App. 5 Cir.1988), the fifth circuit affirmed a three-year sentence imposed on a conviction for negligent homicide. In that case, Clark was also determined to be intoxicated at the time and drove throug”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 21 So. 3d 1154 - State v. Webre · 224 So. 3d 990 - State v. Toups

2. “A trial court must look at the particular circumstances of the case and the defendant’s background in order to impose a sentence that is suited for him. On review, the issue is not whether another sentence woqld have been more appropriate; rather, it is.,whether the trial court abused its discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 224 So. 3d 990 - State v. Toups