987 So. 2d 286 - State v. Jacobs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Aggravated burglary is the unauthorized entering of any inhabited dwelling, or of any structure, water craft, or movable where a person is present, with the intent to commit a felony or any theft therein, if the offender, (1) Is armed with a dangerous weapon; or (2) After entering arms himself with a dangerous weapon; or (3) Commits a battery upon any person while in such place, or in entering or leaving such place.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 125 So. 3d 1134 - State v. Lazaro · 36 So. 3d 351 - State v. Davis

2. “[n]o law shall subject any person to cruel or unusual punishment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 5 So. 3d 1063 - State v. TS · 63 So. 3d 1185 - State v. J.S.

3. “In State v. Barton, 02-163, pp. 17-18, (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/30/03), 857 So.2d 1189, 1201-02 , writ denied, 03-3012 (La.2/20/04), 866 So.2d 817 , the court summarized the two tests used by Louisiana courts use [sic] in examining violations of double jeopardy as follows: The “distinct fact” test, commonly referred to as the Blockburger test, is taken from Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) as follows: The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. Accord, State v. Knowles, 392 So.2d 651, 654 (La.1980). The second test is the “same evidence” test. In State v. Steele, 387 So.2d 1175, 1177 (La.1980), the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that test as follows: If the evidence required to support a finding of guilt of one crime would also have supported conviction of the other, the two are the same offense under a plea of double 11fljeopardy, and a defendant can be placed in jeopardy for only one. The test depends on the evidence necessary for conviction, not all the evidence introduced at trial.... The “same evidence” test is broader than Blockburger , “the central idea being that one should not be punished (or put in jeopardy) twice for the same course of conduct.” State v. Steele, 387 So”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 36 So. 3d 351 - State v. Davis