State v. McCleod’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Certainly, at some point, the amount of a controlled substance in a defendant’s possession can establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant intended to deliver or distribute that substance to others. ... Conversely, ‘ “[p]roof of possession of a small amount of a controlled substance, standing alone, is an insufficient basis from which an intent to distribute may be inferred.” ’ ... ‘ “[P]roof of possession with an intent to distribute or sell should not be based solely upon surmise or suspicion. There must be evidentiary facts which will rationally produce in the minds of jurors a certainty, a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did in actual fact intend to distribute or sell the [controlled substance], not that he might have such intent.” ’ ‘Intent to distribute may be inferred solely from the possession of an amount of controlled substance too large to be used by the possessor alone.’ ‘On the other hand, a quantity that is consistent with personal use does not raise such an inference in the absence of other evidence.’ ... For the quantity alone to sufficiently support a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, of intent to deliver or distribute the controlled substance, the amount must be inconsistent with personal use. ... Thus, the amount of the controlled substance found in the defendant’s possession must be sufficiently large that a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs are not for the defendant’s personal use and are inten”

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