918 So. 2d 1186 - State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “i.e., . . . that an accused is aware of the illegal drugs in his possession.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 981 So. 2d 734 - State v. Carter · 981 So. 2d 881 - State v. McGinnis

2. “When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the critical inquiry of the reviewing court is |2whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 [rehearing denied, 444 U.S. 890 , 100 S.Ct. 195 , 62 L.Ed.2d 126 ] (1979); State ex rel. Graffagnino v. King, 436 So.2d 559 (La.1983); State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105 (La.1982); State v. Moody, 393 So.2d 1212 (La.1981). The role of the factfinder is to weigh the respective credibility of each witness. Therefore, the appellate court should not second guess the credibility determinations of the factfinder beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of review. See State ex rel. Graffagnino, 436 So.2d 559 , citing State v. Richardson, 425 So.2d 1228 (La.1983). State v. Miller, 98-1873, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99), 746 So.2d 118, 120 , writ denied, 99-3259 (La.5/5/00), 761 So.2d 541 . Additionally, in State v. Ortiz, 96-1609, p. 12 (La.10/21/97), 701 So.2d 922, 930 , cert. denied, 524 U.S. 943 , 118 S.Ct. 2352 , 141 L.Ed.2d 722 (1998), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La.R.S. 15:438 requires that “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reason”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 41 So. 3d 546 - State v. Hunter

3. “[A] trial judge lacks authority under La.R.S. 15:573.1(C) to deny a defendant eligibility for good time credits against his sentence, because that statute is "directed to the Department of Corrections exclusively." State ex rel. Simmons v. Stalder, 93-1852 (La.1/6/96), 666 So.2d 661 . Moreover, even the Department of Corrections lacks that authority under La.R.S. 15:571.3(C) in a case in which the trial court has not formally adjudicated and sentenced the defendant as a multiple offender under the provisions of La.R.S. 15:529.1. When the sentencing court is of the opinion that a denial of diminution of sentence is warranted under the specific circumstances of the case, the trial judge's discretion should be exercised under La.C.Cr.P. 890.1(B).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 951 So. 2d 508 - State v. Ordner