State v. President’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To prove constructive possession, the State must show that the substance was within the defendant's dominion and control or in his joint possession. State v. Trahan, 425 So.2d 1222 (La.1983); State v. Smith, 257 La. 1109 , 245 So.2d 327 (La.1971); State v. Williams, 546 So.2d 963 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989). See also State v. Harvey, 463 So.2d 706 (La.App. 4 Cir.1985); State v. Newberry, 560 So.2d 121 (La.App. 3 Cir.1990). Several factors may be considered when determining dominion and control: [D]efendant's knowledge that illegal drugs are in the area; the defendant's relationship with the person found to be in actual possession; the defendant's access to the area where the drugs were found; the evidence of recent drug use by the defendant; the defendant's physical proximity to the drugs; and any evidence that the particular area was frequented by drug users. State v. Franklin, 96-1346, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/16/97); 693 So.2d 219, 222 , citing Bujol v. Cain, 713 F.2d 112 (5 Cir. 1983); see also State v. Tasker, 448 So.2d 1311, 1314 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 450 So.2d 644 (La.1984).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 734 So. 2d 650 - State v. Montgomery

2. “[t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility... is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims it is.”

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