Frank v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 134 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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"From the foregoing it appears to be established in this state that before one charged with unlawfully possessing narcotic drugs may be convicted, the State must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew of the presence of the narcotic drugs on premises occupied and controlled by him either exclusively or jointly with others. If the premises on which the drugs are found are in the exclusive possession and control of the accused, knowledge of their presence on such premises coupled with his ability to maintain control over them may be inferred. Although no further proof of knowledge by the State is required in cases of exclusive possession by the accused, the inference of knowledge is rebuttable and not conclusive. If the premises on which the drugs are found is not in the exclusive but only in the joint possession of the accused, knowledge of the drugs' presence on the premises and the ability to maintain control over them by the accused will not be inferred but must be established by proof. Such proof may consist either of evidence establishing actual knowledge by the accused, or evidence of incriminating statements and circumstances from which a jury might lawfully infer knowledge by the accused of the drugs' presence on the premises. In any event, the question of scienter or knowledge is one which must be resolved by the jury under the evidence in the case and upon proper instruction by the court embodying the principles discussed above." * * * * * * "Proof”

   24 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brayton v. State · 489 So. 2d 1198 - Williams v. State

2. ““ ‘ “ . . . But [where the accused has not been] in exclusive possession of the premises, it may not be inferred that he knew of the presence of the narcotics and had control of them, unless there are other incriminating statements or circumstances tending to buttress such an inference.” . . . ’ ” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State · 375 So. 2d 633 - Thompson v. State

3. “398.03 ... It is unlawful for any person to ... possess, have under his control, ... any narcotic drug ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Green v. State · 276 So. 2d 191 - Griffin v. State