984 So. 2d 97 - State v. Griffin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On the issue of whether the evidence sufficiently proved possession, the State is not required to show actual physical possession of the narcotics by a defendant in order to convict. See State v. Trahan, 425 So.2d 1222, 1226 (La.1988). Constructive possession is sufficient. A person is considered to be in constructive possession of a controlled dangerous substance if it is subject to his dominion and control, regardless of whether it is in his physical possession. Id. However, the mere presence in the area where narcotics are discovered or mere association with the person who does control the drug or the area where it is located is insufficient to support a finding of constructive possession. See State v. Harris, 94-0970, p. 4 (La. 12/8/94), 647 So.2d 337, 338 (per curiam). A determination of whether there is “possession” sufficient to convict' depends on the peculiar facts of each case. State v. Gordon, 93-1922, p. 9 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/10/94), 646 So.2d 995, 1002 . Factors to-be considered in determining whether a defendant exercised dominion and control sufficient to constitute possession include his knowledge that drugs were in the area, his relationship with the person found to be in actual possession, his access to the area where the drugs were found, evidence of recent drug use, and his physical proximity to the drugs. State v. Toups, 2001-1875, p. 4 (La. 10/15/02), 833 So.2d 910, 913 . |12Guilty knowledge is an essential element of the crime of possession of cocaine. H”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 201 So. 3d 379 - State v. Williams