164 Md. App. 460 - Larocca 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. “1) proximity between the defendant and the contraband, 2) the fact that the contraband was within the view or otherwise within the knowledge of the defendant, 3) ownership or some possessory right in the premises or the automobile in which the contraband is found, or 4) the presence of circumstances from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the defendant was participating with others in the mutual use and enjoyment of the contraband.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 173 Md. App. 223 - In Re Ondrel M. · 183 Md. App. 86 - Henderson v. State

2. “[W]e give 'due regard to the [fact finder's] finding of facts, its resolution of conflicting evidence, and significantly, its opportunity to observe and assess the credibility of witnesses.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 233 Md. App. 88 - Fone v. State · 236 Md. App. 676 - Sissoko v. State

3. ““Also of critical importance here, the evidence permitted an inference that the appellant was engaged in the mutual use and enjoyment of marijuana (the fourth Folk factor) and that the three occupants of the car were engaged in a marijuana-focused common enterprise. There was direct evidence that marijuana was being smoked in a communal fashion in the passenger compartment of the small vehicle, with the windows rolled up.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 173 Md. App. 223 - In Re Ondrel M. · 223 Md. App. 329 - Cerrato-Molina v. State