978 So. 2d 922 - State v. Jacks’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. “| ^Defendant asserts that the State cannot use his prior conduct that was the subject of his 2003 guilty plea to support the “repeated” element of the present stalking charge because such would be a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Defendant argues that there was no repeated act because the July 17, 2006 incident was a single incident and because his prior acts of stalking were the subject of his 2003 plea bargain, they cannot be considered relative to the current charge, under principles of double jeopardy. In State v. Rico, 99-158, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/2/99), 741 So.2d 774, 777 , writ denied, 99-1883 (La.12/10/99), 751 So.2d 244 , the Third Circuit defined “repeated” as used in LSA-R.S. 14:40.2(A) as meaning “renewed or recurring]/]” The Rico court determined that, in that instance, defendant’s actions were not sufficient to satisfy the elements of stalking. Rico was charged with a “repeated following” of the victim as opposed to a “repeated harassing” of the victim and in that case, Rico had no prior history with the victim. Rico had encountered the victim only that once and had followed her on only that day. The court determined that because “repeated”, as defined by Webster’s Dictionary, is “renewed or recurring again and again,” and Rico had encountered the victim only once, the facts did not support a stalking offense. That is not the case here. Jacks has previously been convicted of stalking the Rogillio family and “renewed” that harassment on July 17, 2006.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 81 So. 3d 691 - State v. Saucier

2. “Stalking is the intentional and repeated following or harassing of another person that would cause a reasonable person to feel alarmed or to suffer emotional distress. Stalking shall include but not be limited to the intentional and repeated uninvited presence of the perpetrator at another person's home, workplace, school, or any place which would cause a reasonable person to be alarmed, or to suffer emotional distress as a result of verbal, written, or behaviorally implied threats of death, bodily injury, sexual assault, kidnapping, or any other statutory criminal act to himself or any member of his family or any person with whom he is acquainted.”

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

3. “of the facts adduced at trial in light of the verdict rendered, i.e., how the evidence presented goes to satisfy the prosecution's burden of proof. Therefore, if the evidence required to support a finding of guilt would also support a conviction for another offense, the defendant can be placed in jeopardy for only one of the two. State v. Sandifer , 95-2226 at p. 5, 679 So.2d at 1329 . State v. Jacks, 07-805, pp.6-7 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/2/07), 978 So.2d 922, 926 , writ denied, 08-345 (La. 9/19/08), 992 So.2d 951 . Second degree robbery is”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 5 So. 3d 1063 - State v. Sinegal