13 Md. App. 584 - Puckett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ .. . The sole evidence incriminating him consisted of the presence of the plants on the property jointly owned by the appellants and on which they made their home. Although the trial judge did not in his opinion address himself to this question, there was testimony that Mr. Puckett spent most of his time on construction work in Pennsylvania. Ownership and exclusive possession of property may in some circumstances be sufficient to create a rational inference that the owner was in possession of a prohibited substance growing thereon. However, we cannot here overlook the findings of the trial judge that Mrs. Puckett was the active party, and the total absence of evidence of Mr. Puckett’s involvement. He may well have been guilty but the proof does not support it. See Davis & Green v. State, 9 Md. App. 48 , 262 A. 2d 578 , Propst v. State, 5 Md. App. 36 , 245 A. 2d 88 . We find his convictions were clearly erroneous.” Id. 13 Md. App. 587 -8. 6”

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