State v. Lopez’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. “. However, in establishing the chain of possession the prosecution need not call forth every person who comes in contact with the evidence where there is nothing to suggest the probability of substitution or tampering. State v. Davies, supra [ 110 Ariz. 51 , 514 P.2d 1239 ]; State v. Hodges, 109 Ariz. 196 , 507 P.2d 121 (1973); Udall, Evidence § 131 (1960). The ultimate decision of whether sufficient foundation has been laid is within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Noble, 109 Ariz. 539 , 514 P.2d 460 (1973). In the instant case, there was no suggestion of tampering in the chain of possession from the narcotics officer to the chemist. In addition, the officer testified that the exhibit tested by the chemist was identifiable to him by his departmental report number, placed there by him, as being the same packet received from the defendant and was substantially in the same condition as when he placed it in the property room. Finally, no issue was raised that the Exhibit 1 was not heroin. Under these circumstances we find no abuse of discretion in admitting the exhibit into evidence. [ 23 Ariz.App. at 556 , 534 P.2d at 770 ]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 26 Ariz. App. 178 - State v. Moreno