State v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In State v. Wilson, 96-251 (La.App. 5th Cir.10/1/96), 683 So.2d 775 , the defendant complained that the trial court had failed to rule on defense motions for post-verdict judgment of acquittal and for new trial prior to sentencing. This Court addressed the merits of the defendant's other claims, but vacated his sentences and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on the outstanding motions and for a subsequent resentencing. Wilson , 96-251 at pp. 6-7, 683 So.2d at 777 . More recently, this Court has remedied such errors by conditionally affirming the defendant's conviction, vacating the sentence, and remanding for rulings on the Defendant's motions; [9] or by simply vacating the defendant's sentence and remanding for rulings on the defendant's motion. [10]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 948 So. 2d 199 - State v. Morgan

2. “Factors to be considered in determining whether a defendant exercised dominion and control sufficient to constitute constructive possession include (1) the defendant’s knowledge that illegal drugs were in the area, (2) his relations with the person found to be in actual possession, (3) the defendant’s access to the area where the drugs were found, (4) evidence of recent drug use by the defendant, (5) the existence of paraphernalia, and, (6) evidence that the area was frequented by drug users.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 22 So. 3d 1105 - State v. Thompson

3. “A subject can have constructive possession if he jointly possesses drugs with a companion and if he willfully and knowingly shares with his companion the right to control the drugs.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 975 So. 2d 31 - State v. Hollingsworth