707 So. 2d 512 - State v. Douglas’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 2011
9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · 448 So. 2d 676 - State v. Captville · 436 So. 2d 471 - State v. Sutton · 445 So. 2d 1198 - State v. Wright · State v. Shapiro
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In State v. Cann, [ 319 So.2d 396 (La. 1975) ] supra, officers executing the search warrant found the defendant in a bedroom behind locked doors. No contraband was found on him or in the bedroom. Marijuana was found in the kitchen in plain view. Yet, the apartment belonged to someone else, and other people were found in the apartment. The court found that the evidence was not sufficient to uphold a finding that the defendant had constructive possession of the drugs. The court emphasized that there was no evidence that the defendant knew or had reason to know that the marijuana was in the kitchen, that he lived there, that he had been in the apartment on other occasions, that drugs were found on the defendant or in the bedroom where he was found, or that he had or shared possession, dominion, or control over the marijuana in the house. In State v. Harris, [ 597 So.2d 1105 (La.App. 2 Cir.1992) ] supra, the defendant, who was not shown to be a resident of the dwelling, was sitting on a couch with another party when police officers entered the house. The search of the house revealed a matchbox of cocaine behind the couch. This court, overturning a jury verdict against defen dant, held that constructive possession of the matchbox by the defendant was not sufficiently proven since it was possible for either of the two parties on the couch to have dropped the drugs at the time of the arrest. The above cases struggle with the establishment of constructive possession in search and sei”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.