State v. Parker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... the transfer of a controlled dangerous substance whether or not there exists an agency relationship.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hall · 744 So. 2d 143 - State v. Long

2. “"Distribute" is defined in LSA-R.S. 40:961(13) as "to deliver a controlled dangerous substance ... `Distributor' means a person who delivers a controlled dangerous substance...." "Deliver" is defined in LSA-R.S. 40:961(9) as "... the transfer of a controlled dangerous substance whether or not there exists an agency relationship." In addition, jurisprudence has defined "deliver" as transferring possession or control. State v. Martin, 310 So.2d 544, 546 (La. 1975); State v. Simon, 607 So.2d 793 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992), writ den., 612 So.2d 77 (La.1993).... A defendant may be guilty as a principal in the crime of distribution if he aids and abets in the distribution or indirectly counsels or procures another to distribute the controlled dangerous substance. State v. Parker, 595 So.2d 765 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1992). La.R.S. 14:24 defines principals as: "[A]ll persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether present or absent, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, aid and abet in its commission, or directly or indirectly counsel or procure another to commit the crime...." See State v. Brooks, 505 So.2d 714 (La.1987), cert. den. Brooks v. Louisiana, 484 U.S. 947 , 108 S.Ct. 337 , 98 L.Ed.2d 363 (1987); State v. Watson, 529 So.2d 94 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988), writ den. 535 So.2d 740 (La.1989). To support a defendant's conviction as a principal, the State must show that the defendant had the requisite mental state for the crime. Brooks; State v. Spotville”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hall · 823 So. 2d 987 - State v. Harry

3. “In the majority of the reported cases involving principals to a distribution of contraband offense, the principal has played much [sic] more active role in the planning and orchestrating of the sale. See State v. Goins, 568 So.2d 231 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1990), writ den., 573 So.2d 1117 (La.1991) wherein a state witness offered direct evidence that the defendant totally orchestrated the narcotics purchase by initiating the drug transaction, and deciding the time and place where they would later meet to complete the drug transaction. In that case, the defendant drove the state witness to two locations for the specific purpose of “finding cocaine to sell him.” Goins, 568 So.2d at 236 . Likewise, in State v. Parker [ 595 So.2d 765 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992)], the defendant flagged down an undercover officer and informed the officer that his brother-in-law had crack cocaine for sale. That defendant entered the officer’s vehicle and directed the officer to a street comer and arranged for the purchase by the undercover officer of two rocks of cocaine for $20. This court found that any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant aided and abetted in the commission of the crime of distribution of cocaine. In State v. Fontenot, 524 So.2d 867 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1988), the defendant arranged for a sale of marijuana between an associate and an undercover officer. The defendant in that case accompanied both men outside a bar and was present when the transaction occurred. After the exchange,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Vigers · 823 So. 2d 987 - State v. Harry