743 So. 2d 766 - State v. Mamon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he officers admitted that they never saw defendant distribute or attempt to distribute the marijuana. Defendant carried only thirteen dollars, limiting his ability to provide change for a sale; and he carried no weapons. Officer Quetant did not provide any expert testimony concerning the packaging of marijuana for retail sales, nor did he address the question of whether the amount of marijuana defendant possessed was inconsistent with personal use. Officer Walker testified that they arrested defendant for possession with intent to distribute because of the quantity of marijuana and the packages of individual baggies. However, the State did not tender Officer Walker as an expert, and the trial court allowed the testimony only to show the basis for defendant's arrest. Thus, the State did not produce any expert testimony on quantity and/or packaging of marijuana for retail sales. Similarly, it produced no evidence on the consistency of the amount possessed with strictly personal use.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Francois · 958 So. 2d 713 - State v. Davis

2. “In addressing defendant's argument, the State relies upon this court's decision in State v. Thomas, 543 So.2d 540 (La.App. 4 Cir.1989), writ denied, 548 So.2d 1229 (La.1989). In Thomas , this court held that evidence of defendant's possession of thirty-three bags of powder cocaine, found within a larger plastic bag, was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Thomas argued that the arresting officers had not seen him distributing cocaine, that he had no money in his possession, and that the State presented no expert testimony that the amount of cocaine was inconsistent with personal use. 543 So.2d at 542 . This court simply found it sufficient that the jury had been "presented with thirty-three individually wrapped bags of cocaine," id. at 543—an unusual decision, given the opinion's citations to State v. Myre, 502 So.2d 1105 (La.App. 4 Cir.1987), and State v. Fernandez, 489 So.2d 345 (La.App. 4 Cir.1986), writ denied, 493 So.2d 1215 (La.1986). In Myre , this court held that the State produced sufficient evidence of intent to distribute PCP where the defendant had been arrested in an area known for drug trafficking while carrying $264.00 in cash and where an expert testified that the amount of PCP seized was inconsistent with strictly personal use. In Fernandez , this court noted sufficient evidence of intent to distribute cocaine where the contraband seized included a bag containing twenty-one small packets of cocaine”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 780 So. 2d 1140 - State v. Johnson

3. “(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. 780 So. 2d 1140 - State v. Johnson