296 So. 2d 302 - State v. Porter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 11 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. . . for any person Knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled dangerous substance,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 323 So. 2d 788 - State v. Alford · 319 So. 2d 344 - State v. Humphreys

2. “"A person may be in constructive possession of a drug even though it is not in his physical custody, if it is subject to his dominion and control. Also, a person may be deemed to be in joint possesion of a drug which is in the physical custody of a companion, if he willfully and knowingly shares with the other the right to control of it." State v. Smith, 257 La. 1109 , 245 So.2d 327 (1971). See also State v. Knight, 298 So.2d 726 (La. 1974); State v. Porter, 296 So.2d 302 (La.1974); State v. Williams, supra; Spataro v. State, 179 So.2d 873 (Fla.1965).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 323 So. 2d 788 - State v. Alford · 319 So. 2d 396 - State v. Cann

3. “"Applying these guidelines to the facts of the present case, we conclude that the record contains some evidence that Porter knowingly or intentionally constructively possessed the marijuana in question. The drug, although not found on his person, was discovered in areas under his direct control and dominion. We must bear in mind that Porter was the owner and driver of the vehicle. By his own testimony, he parked his car in Clark's Park only two or three minutes before the police officers arrived. In that short length of time, a paper bag containing four `lids' of marijuana and an open plastic bag of marijuana were thrown to the ground in the area where Porter had been standing. Furthermore, a `joint' was found next to the driver's door and a `roach' was discovered in the area between the driver's seat and the door panel. Also, a toilet tissue or Kleenex containing the drug was found on the dashboard of the car. We consider these facts constitute not merely some evidence, but ample evidence to establish guilty knowledge on the part of Porter. Hence, since there is some evidence that Porter knowingly or intentionally possessed the marijuana, the verdict will not be disturbed." ( 296 So.2d 302,304 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 319 So. 2d 396 - State v. Cann