968 So. 2d 146 - State v. Desoto’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The State is required to show more than a mere deviation from the standard of ordinary care to establish proof of criminal negligence. State v. Jones, 298 So.2d 774 (La.1974). The negligent homicide statute proscribes conduct that goes beyond carelessness, mistake, error in judgment or omission of duty. State v. Fenner, 94-1498 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/16/95, 664 So.2d 1315 ). 664 So.2d 1315 [. writ denied. 95-3001 (La.4/29/96), 672 So.2d 679 ], It is more than the mere failure to do something which a reasonable and prudent man would do, or the mere doing of something which a reasonable and prudent man might not do, on cool reflection, after considering the degree of harm likely to follow. Further, the "consequences” alone do not determine the criminal culpability of the actor. Stale v. Bowie, 95-0795. p, 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/13/96), 684 So.2d 68, 70 . writ granted on other grounds, 96-2987 (La. 1/31/97), 687 So.2d 369 .”

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

2. “I note, for example, that the writing judge states as fact that the defendant did not see Roy enter the field. There was, in fact, testimony from the defendant that could have caused the jury to conclude that the defendant did see Roy enter the field. This court’s substitution of its conclusions regarding the evidence for the conclusions of the jury is exactly what the Supreme Court in Ware reminds us is prohibited.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Desoto

3. “[defendant violated a rule of hunting [which] does not necessarily equate to criminal negligence. The State’s position that a hunter must always be certain what he sees in his sight before shooting would mean we could never have a hunting “accident,” but simply de facto acts of criminal negligence. To the relief of many, including our esteemed vice president, this is not the intent of the statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Desoto