983 So. 2d 95 - State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
9 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1501 (Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 1516
Relies on State v. Williams · State v. Vallery · State v. Fontenot · 429 Pa. Super. 464 - Commonwealth v. Govens · State v. Garner
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Tampering with evidence with the specific intent of distorting the results of any criminal investigation or proceeding which may reasonably prove relevant to a criminal investigation or proceeding. Tampering with evidence shall include the intentional alteration, movement, removal, or addition of any object or substance ...: (a) At the location of any incident which the perpetrator knows or has good reason to believe will be the subject of any investigation by ... law enforcement officers. Papillion, 556 So.2d at 1336 (quoting La.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:130.1).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“The defendant must also have tampered with evidence 'with the specific intent of distorting the results' of a criminal investigation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnson · State v. Bradley“nothing beyond 'movement' of the evidence is required by the statute if accompanied by the requisite intent and knowledge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnson · State v. Bradley
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.