State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “peculiar facts” of each case, which may include the following: (1) the defendant’s knowledge that the contraband is in an area; (2) his relationship with the person found to be in actual possession; (3) his access to the area where the drugs were found; (4) evidence of recent drug use; and (5) the defendant’s physical proximity to the contraband. Id. Further, a defendant may have constructive possession if he willfully and knowingly shares the right to control the contraband with another. Id. 16 . Elie explained, in effect, that this was a”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 37 So. 3d 466 - State v. Hollier · State v. Fobb

2. “La. R.S. 15:529.1(D)(1)(a) requires that the Defendant be advised of the specific allegations contained in the habitual offender bill of information and his right to a formal hearing at which the State must prove its case. Implicit in this requirement is the additional requirement that the Defendant be advised of his constitutional right to remain silent. Generally, the failure of the trial court to advise the Defendant of his right to a hearing and his right to remain silent is not considered reversible error where the Defendant's habitual offender status is established by competent evidence offered by the State at a hearing rather than by admission of the Defendant. However, when the guilt of the Defendant is proven by his own stipulation or admission to the habitual offender bill of information, without having been informed of his right to a hearing or his right to remain silent by either the trial court or his attorney, there is reversible error. State v. Bell, 03-217(La.App. 5 Cir. 5/28/03), 848 So.2d 87, 90 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Delaney · 63 So. 3d 1113 - State v. Robinson

3. “'The guarantee against double jeopardy provides three central constitutional protections' one of which is 'protection against multiple punishments for the same offense.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 259 So. 3d 1125 - State v. Hampton · 242 So. 3d 1254 - State v. Obrien