514 So. 2d 602 - State v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 21 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The state need not prove that a defendant was in actual physical possession of the drugs found; constructive possession is sufficient to support a conviction. State v. Trahan, 425 So.2d 1222 (La. 1983). The mere presence of the defendant in the area where the drugs are found, or the mere fact that the defendant knows the person in actual possession is insufficient to prove constructive possession. State v. Trahan, supra; State v. Johnson, 404 So.2d 239 (La.1981), cert. den.; Kelly v. Louisiana, 456 U.S. 925 , 102 S.Ct. 1970 , 72 L.Ed.2d 440 (1982). However, a person found in the area of the contraband may be considered in constructive possession if the illegal substance is subject to his dominion and control. State v. Trahan, supra; State v. Johnson, supra; State v. Smith, 257 La. 1109 , 245 So.2d 327 (1971); or if the person is in joint possession of a drug which is in the physical possession of a companion, if he willfully and knowingly shares with the other the right to control of the drug. Guilty knowledge is the essential element. State v. Trahan, supra, citing State v. Smith, supra. See also, State v. Hayes, 488 So.2d 1287 (La. App. 4th Cir.1986). The determination of whether there is possession sufficient to convict depends on the facts peculiar to each case. State v. Trahan, supra, citing State v. Cann, 319 So.2d 396 (La. 1975). The fact finder may draw reasonable inferences based on the evidence presented at trial. State v. Edwards, 354 So.2d 1322 (La.1978); La.R.S.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 527 So. 2d 62 - State v. Love · 544 So. 2d 636 - State v. Jones

2. “"To support a conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance in violation of La.R.S. 40:967, the state must prove that the defendant was (1) in possession of the illegal drug and (2) that he knowingly possessed the drug. The state need not prove that a defendant was in actual physical possession of the drugs found; constructive possession is sufficient to support a conviction. (citation omitted) The mere presence of the defendant in the area where the drugs are found, or the mere fact that the defendant knows the person in actual possession is insufficient to prove constructive possession. (citation omitted) However, a person found in the area of the contraband may be considered in constructive possession if the illegal substance is subject to his dominion and control. (citations omitted) Or if the person is in joint possession of a drug which is in the physical possession of a companion, if he willfully and knowingly shares with the other the right to control of the drug. Guilty knowledge is the essential element. (citation omitted) The determination of whether there is possession sufficient to convict depends on the facts peculiar to each case."”

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