139 Md. App. 538 - Moye v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In order for the State to prove each Defendant guilty of possession as charged the State must prove, one, that the Defendant knowingly possessed the substance. Knowingly possessed the substance. Number two, that the Defendant knew the general character, or illicit nature, of the substance. That the Defendant knew the general character or illicit nature of the substance. And the third and last element is that the substance was what it was alleged to be, cocaine or marijuana. Now, what does possession mean? Possession means having control over that substance, whether it is actual or indirect. Another word for indirect is constructive. The Defendant does not have to be the only person who is in possession of that particular substance. And this means to say that more than one person can be in possession of the same substance at the same time. We often times call this joint possession. A person not in actual control, who knowingly has both the power and the intention to exercise control over a thing, either personally or through another person, has what we call indirect possession. Now, in determining whether a Defendant has indirect possession, or, again, constructive possession, as I said earlier, of a substance, consider all of the surrounding circumstances. Those circumstances can include, but are not limited to, say, the distance between that Defendant and the substance, whether that Defendant had some ownership or possessory interest in the place where the substance was foun”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moye v. State

2. “In this case, unlike Taylor and the cases it relied on, both marijuana and cocaine were in the open and were not concealed. The marijuana was in an open drawer, as was the dinner plate with the white powdery residue, and a razor blade on top of the plate.... Although [Moye did not live] in the basement where the drugs were located, there was free access between the upstairs and the basement. Moreover, the police observed [Moye] in the basement of the residence where the cocaine and marijuana were discovered. [Moye’s] residence in the premises and his presence in the room where the plain view contraband was discovered allows a reasonable inference that [Moye] was aware of and possessed the illegal drugs.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moye v. State

3. “1. Where drugs and paraphernalia were found in open drawers in the basement of a private residence, and the record shows that Petitioner and the lessees of the house live upstairs and that the basement is rented to a fourth individual, is Petitioner’s mere presence in the basement sufficient to sustain convictions for possession of CDS and possession of paraphernalia? 2. Did the instruction given fail to inform the jury that it could convict Petitioner of possession of CDS and possession of paraphernalia only if it found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Petitioner did in fact exercise some dominion or control over the CDS and paraphernalia?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moye v. State