752 So. 2d 314 - State v. Smith’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. “Although a conviction for possession of cocaine 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. Gaines, 96-1850, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/29/97), 688 So.2d 679, 682-83 , writ denied, 97-0510 (La.9/5/97), 700 So.2d 503 ; State v. Spates, 588 So.2d 398, 401 (La.App. 2 Cir.1991). In 17addition, the possession of drug paraphernalia is, because of the items’ peculiar nature, indicative of guilty knowledge. Gaines , p. 6, 688 So.2d at 683 ; Spates, 588 So.2d at 402 . Finally, flight is a circumstance from which guilt can be inferred. See State v. White, 535 So.2d 929, 933 (La.App. 2 Cir.1988), writ denied, 537 So.2d 1161 (La.1989).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 74 So. 3d 782 - State v. Bivens · 41 So. 3d 546 - State v. Hunter

2. “A person in the area of the contraband may be considered in constructive possession if it is subject to his dominion and control and he has guilty knowledge.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 775 So. 2d 1138 - State v. Henderson

3. “[t]he elements of knowledge and intent are states of mind and need not be proven as facts, but rather may be inferred from the circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 775 So. 2d 1138 - State v. Henderson