74 So. 3d 782 - State v. Bivens’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There is sufficient evidence for conviction if the appellate court determines that ‘the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable Indoubt.’ State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 33 (La.12/15/99), 752 So.2d 771, 790 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 839 , 121 S.Ct. 102 , 148 L.Ed.2d 61 (2000). Further, when the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 sets forth the rule that ‘assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, [the circumstantial evidence] must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’ However, La.R.S. 15:438 does not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general rational juror’s reasonable doubt formula; rather it serves as a helpful evidentiary guide for jurors when evaluating circumstantial evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 112 So. 3d 1064 - State v. Eubanks · 140 So. 3d 911 - State ex rel. T.H.

2. ““Intent is a condition of mind which is usually proved by evidence of circumstances from which intent may be inferred.” State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731, 735 (La.1992) (citations omitted). There are five factors courts consider to determine whether an intent to distribute can be inferred: 1) whether the defendant ever distributed or attempted to distribute the drug; 2) whether the drug was in a form usually associated with possession for distribution to others; 3) whether the amount of drug created an inference of an intent to distribute; 4) whether expert or other testimony established that the amount of drug found in the defendant’s possession is inconsistent with personal use only; and 5) whether there was any | ¡¡paraphernalia, such as baggies or scales, evidencing an intent to distribute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 112 So. 3d 1064 - State v. Eubanks