189 Wis. 2d 496 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2022
20 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on 117 Wis. 2d 529 - Ball v. District No. 4, Area Board · 119 Wis. 2d 871 - In Interest of PAK · United States v. Moran · United States v. Pruitt · 116 Wis. 2d 605 - State v. Hecht
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] conviction for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance cannot be upheld where the only evidence presented by the State was that the seller purported to have in his possession and agreed to sell a small amount of the controlled substance consistent with personal use to the buyer and where there was not even a claim that the buyer intended to sell, deliver or give the controlled substance to a third party .... [T]he legislature did not intend a buyer-seller relationship for a small amount of a cocaine for the buyer's personal use to be a conspiracy and thus make the buyer guilty of a felony. A conspiracy must involve at least two people, with each member subject to the same penalty for the conspiracy. The two parties involved here are the buyer and seller. When the case is examined from the point of the buyer instead of the seller, it becomes obvious that the State's interpretation does not give effect to the legislative intent behind the Wisconsin Uniform Controlled Substances Act, ch. 161, Stats. Here, there was no claim or proof that the buyer intended to further deliver the cocaine which would be a felony. As such, the most the buyer could have been guilty of was the misdemeanor of possession. We conclude the legislature did not intend that the State could, by adding a conspiracy charge to the possession charge, create a felony charge against the buyer who buys an amount of cocaine consistent with personal use where there is not even a claim by the State that the b”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'Deliver' or 'delivery', unless the context otherwise requires, means the actual, constructive or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance or controlled substance analog, whether or not there is any agency relationship.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'As for the classic single sale — for personal use, without prearrangement, and with nothing more — the precedent in this circuit as well as others treats it as not involving conspiracy.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.