Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Cann, 319 So. 2d 396.

89 citing documents.

State v. Williams 588 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
The defendant specifically contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he possessed the cocaine, for the *1243 proposition that mere presence in the area where controlled dangerous substances are found is not sufficient to constitute constructive possession.
State v. Schroeder 572 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
1st Cir.1984); State v. Williams, supra.; State v. Harvey, supra.
State v. Bell 566 So. 2d 959 La. 1990
State v. Jamison 565 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Chambers 563 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Trahan, supra , (La.
State v. Martinez-Sanchez 563 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Although the charge given is not a model of clarity or conciseness, -99 (La.
State v. King 554 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Williams 546 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Jones 544 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Trahan, supra, (La.
State v. Richardson 533 So. 2d 1316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Converse 529 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Ashlock 526 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Jones 526 So. 2d 1374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Hall 524 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Kingsmill 514 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. Trahan, supra , (La.
State v. Walker 514 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. Johnson 513 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
-399 (La.1975), (La.App.
State v. Bailey 511 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Broadnax 503 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
the court, after reviewing a number of cases in order to determine what facts will support a finding of constructive possession, concluded that each case must stand or fall on its own merits.
State v. Oliver 499 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Petta 496 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Guirlando 491 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Hayes 488 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Cann 471 So. 2d 701 La. 1985
(reversed due to insufficient evidence that defendant had constructive possession of marijuana); (reversed because of the improper introduction of other crimes evidence).
State v. Abram 465 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Sheppard 466 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Harvey 463 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Arellanes v. United States, 302 F.2d 603 (9th Cir.1962)
State v. Cann 460 So. 2d 1096 La. 1984
State v. Hills 451 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Tasker 448 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Dunn 446 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Washington 441 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Wise 434 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Norman 434 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Trahan 425 So. 2d 1222 La. 1983
State v. Johnson 404 So. 2d 239 La. 1981
Arellanes v. United States, 302 F.2d 603 (9th Cir. 1962)
State v. Walker 369 So. 2d 1345 La. 1979
State v. Alford 323 So. 2d 788 La. 1975
we reversed a defendant's conviction for constructive possession of marijuana in a similar case.
State v. Roach 322 So. 2d 222 La. 1975
mere presence in the area where the illegal drug is discovered or mere association with the person who does control the drug or the property where it is located, does not support a finding of possession.