People v. Gory’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

274 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 275 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Defendant’s fourth ground for reversal, in relation to the possession charge (count four), raises the most serious question. He offered an instruction informing the jury that knowledge of the narcotic character of the thing possessed is an essential ingredient of the offense charged. The court refused to give it but did give CALJIC No. 703: ‘Within the meaning of the law a person is in possession-of a narcotic when it is under his dominion and control and, to his knowledge, either is carried on his person or is in his presence and custody, or,- if not on his person or in his presence, the possession thereof is immediate, accessible and exclusive to him.’ This latter instruction was not sufficient for it did not include the essential element of knowledge of the narcotic character of the particular object possessed. While specific intent to violate the law is immaterial to a conviction for the •unlawful possession of a narcotic, knowledge of the object’s narcotic character — that is, ‘knowledge that the facts exist which bring the act * * * within the provisions of [the] code’— is required.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 118 Cal. App. 2d 340 - People v. Daniels · State v. Giddings

2. ““It may be possible to argue that taking the instructions as a whole, they were sufficient to have informed the jury in a general roundabout way that before defendant could be convicted of the statutory offense of the possession of marijuana, the evidence must show his knowledge of the presence of said property in his box; but since knowledge, in that limited sense, is an essential element of the offense, he was entitled under the circumstances to a specific instruction, such as the requested instruction 12, to clarify the situation. “It therefore follows that the reading, rereading, and subsequent withdrawal of the requested instruction 12 constituted error and we are convinced, under the state of the evidence presented on this essential element of knowledge, that such error must be treated as prejudicial.” (Pp. 458, 459.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Patterson

3. ““The distinction which must be drawn, from a reading of the foregoing authorities, is the distinction between (1) knowledge of the character of the object and the unlawfulness of possession thereof as embraced within the concept of a specific intent to violate the law, and (2) knowledge of the presence of the object as embraced within the concept of ‘physical control with the intent to exercise such control, ’ which constitutes the ‘possession’ denounced by the statute. It is ‘knowledge’ in the first sense which is mentioned in the authorities as being immaterial but ‘knowledge’ in the second sense is the essence of the offense.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Bledsoe