Ledcke v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably Lund v. State (1976), 157 Ind. App. 59 - Guyton v. State (1973)
65 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. § 903 (§ 708 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Gainey · United States Ex Rel. Toth v. Quarles · Pennsylvania v. Nelson · 49 Ill. 2d 338 - The People v. McCabe · Jackson v. State
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is clear from this evidence that marijuana was being processed in the house at the time the police entered and extremely large quantities were spread over the floor. Marijuana was being dried in the oven and heavy smoke was found throughout the house. Appellant was found alone in the room where one of the large bags of marijuana was found, and was attempting to flee when apprehended. From these facts the jury was warranted in finding that the appellant was working in concert with the other three persons in the ‘manufacture’ of marijuana. The statute in force at the time read in part: ‘It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, possess, have under his control, sell, prescribe, administer, dispense, compound or use any narcotic drug. . . .’ Ind. Ann. Stat. §10-3520. Although appellant was charged with possession and not ‘manufacture’, it would be impossible to ‘manufacture’ the marijuana without at least constructively possessing the marijuana as well. Chief Justice Arterburn has held that one cannot sell narcotics without at least constructively possessing them. See Thompson v. State (1972), [259] Ind. [587], 290 N.E.2d 724 . The case of sale and the case of manufacture are analogous. It is possible in a situation such as the one we have before us that the appellant was merely present on the premises and committed no wrongdoing. However, the activity was so obvious that the jury was entitled to infer that the appellant was involved. The State therefore established”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(N)ormally, without more, no “natural probative force” can be placed upon mere presence at a place where narcotics are found. One could just as easily be present innocently as guiltily. Although evidence of presence would certainly be relevant, it alone would not be sufficient to sustain a conviction. 296 N.E.2d at 418.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the regulation of drug abuse is a state concern with special local problems necessitating use of the state police power.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Crouse
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.