Sims v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Gonzalez ..., this Court held that a constructive transfer requires the transferor at least be aware of the existence of the ultimate transferee before delivery. This does not mean that the transferor need know the identity of or be acquainted with the ultimate recipient. It only requires that when the State alleges constructive transfer to an alleged ultimate recipient that the accused must have contemplated that his initial transfer would not be the final transaction in the chain of distribution. [ Daniels, 754 S.W.2d at 221 (emphasis added by Sims , citation omitted).] Gonzalez v. State , involved an indictment that alleged a transfer to a third party (i.e. not the immediate transferee), but this Court found that there was no evidence that the defendant knew the controlled substance was being purchased on behalf of a third party. [ Gonzalez, 588 S.W.2d at 577 .] It is in this context that the passage in Daniels must be read. The articulated rule applies only when the State attempts to obtain a conviction by alleging a recipient that was not the immediate recipient of the contraband. Our conclusion is further supported by the summary in Daniels of the rules applicable to constructive transfers: 1. Prior to an alleged delivery, the transferor must have either direct or indirect control of the substance transferred. Rasmussen [ v. State, 608 S.W.2d 205 , (Tex.Crim.App. 1981) ], supra. 2. The transferor must know of the existence of the transferee. Gonzales [sic], supra. [ ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. MIHNOVICH v. State

2. “[w]hen the transferee alleged is not the immediate transferee, then for the evidence to be sufficient, the defendant must have contemplated that there would in fact be a third party transferee.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. MIHNOVICH v. State

3. “[t]here is in fact no specialized `criminal' meaning for the term `constructive transfer.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. MIHNOVICH v. State