6 So. 3d 315 - State v. Jacobs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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. “1 .¡“Possession of narcotic drugs can be established by actual physical possession or by constructive possession.” State v. Hongo, 06-829, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/06), 944 So.2d 856, 859 (quoting State v. Davis, 05-543, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/30/05), 918 So.2d 1186, 1190 , writ denied, 06-587 (La.10/13/06), 939 So.2d 372 ). The supreme court in State v. Toups, 01-1875, pp. 3-4 (La.10/15/02), 833 So.2d 910, 913 , summarized the law on constructive possession as follows: 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 possession 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 it.... State v. Trahan, 425 So.2d 1222 (La.1983) (citing State v. Smith, 257 La. 1109 , 245 So.2d 327, 329 (1971)). However, it is well settled that the mere presence in an area where drugs are located or the mere association with one possessing drugs does not constitute constructive possession. State v. Harris, 94-0970 (La.12/8/94), 647 So.2d 337 ; State v. Bell, 566 So.2d 959 (La. 1990). A determination of whether there is “possession” sufficient to convict depends on the peculiar facts of each case. Factors to be considered in determining whether a defendant exercised dominion and control sufficient to constitute constructive possession include his knowledge that drugs were in t”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 41 So. 3d 546 - State v. Hunter · 22 So. 3d 1150 - State v. Johnlouis

2. “The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A determination of the weight of evidence is a question of fact, resting solely with the trier of fact who may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witnesses. A reviewing court may impinge on the factfinding function of the jury only to the extent necessary to assure the Jackson[ 3 ] standard of review. It is not the function of an appellate court to assess credibility or re-weigh the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 21 So. 3d 1122 - State v. Ceaser

3. “[E]vidence of flight, concealment, and attempt to avoid apprehension is indicative of consciousness of guilt and may be considered by a jury to infer guilt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 34 So. 3d 1169 - State v. Dixon