473 So. 2d 901 - State v. Long’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. “"A continuous chain of evidence is not essential. State v. Sims, 426 So.2d 148 (La.1983). The law does not require that the evidence regarding chain of custody eliminate all possibilities that the demonstrative evidence has been altered. Rather, it is sufficient if the custodial evidence establishes that it is more probable than not that the object is the one connected to the case. Proof by a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to establish this. State v. Sweeney, 443 So.2d 522 (La.1983); State v. Dotson, 260 La. 471 , 256 So.2d 594 (1971), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 913 , 93 S.Ct. 242 , 34 L.Ed.2d 173 (1972). Nonetheless, lack of positive identification or a deficiency in the chain of custody goes to the weight, rather than the admissibility of evidence. State v. Tonubbee, 420 So.2d 126 (La. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1081 , 103 S.Ct. 1768 , 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983), rehearing denied, 462 U.S. 1146 , 103 S.Ct. 3132 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1381 (1983)."”

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