688 So. 2d 679 - State v. Gaines’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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. “Guilty knowledge is an essential element of the crime of possession of a controlled dangerous substance. State v. Goiner, 410 So.2d 1085 (La.1982). Although a conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance can stand on the possession of the slightest amount of the drug, the amount of the substance will have some bearing on the defendant’s guilty knowledge. State v. Spates, 588 So.2d 398 (La. App. 2nd Cir.1991). In addition, the peculiar nature of the pipe, commonly known as a “straight shooter” and used exclusively for smoking crack cocaine, is also indicative of guilty knowledge. See, State v. Spates, supra at 402 . Finally, flight is a circumstance from which guilt can be inferred. See, State v. White, 535 So.2d 929, 933 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1988), writ denied, 537 So.2d 1161 (La.1989).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 845 So. 2d 358 - State v. Sylvia · 699 So. 2d 512 - State v. Maxwell

2. “In the instant case the defendant ran when he saw the officers approaching him. Although part of this could be attributable to his wanted status and his possession of the gun, the jury could have also found that this action was partially due to his possession of the pipe containing the drug residue. In addition, one officer testified without contradiction as to the purpose of the pipe. See, State v. Spates, supra . [ 588 So.2d 398 (La.App. 2 Cir.1991) ] At trial the appellant did not argue that the residue was so small that he could not have known it was in the pipe; instead, his defense was that one of the officers falsely told the others that he found the pipe on him while he was still sitting in the police care outside the police station. Given these factors, it appears the jury could have disbelieved the appellant's story, found beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly possessed the glass pipe as well as the cocaine residue inside it. This assignment is without merit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 792 So. 2d 117 - State v. Jones

3. “Physical possession of an instrument with no utility other than the ingestion of crack cocaine is sufficient under the Jackson v. Virginia standard to support a conviction for possession of cocaine.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 792 So. 2d 117 - State v. Jones