Hodge v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The evidence presented by the State, to link Hodge to possession of the methamphetamine found on the roadside, included the taped conversations between Hodge and [a drag dealer cooperating with police]; Hodge’s meeting with known drug dealers...; and the fact that Hodge fled from the police. The evidence presented by Hodge, however, cast overwhelming doubt on his connection to the methamphetamine. Police saw no exchange of contraband or money between Hodge [and the known drug dealers], and no narcotics or large sums of money were found in Hodge’s possession. The officer chasing Hodge saw nothing dropped or thrown from the car, although he testified he was following only two car lengths behind. In addition, the amount of contraband discovered far exceeded the intended purchase of one ounce agreed on by Hodge and Spears. Hodge further demonstrated that the chase route was heavily traveled, with over 800 cars a day passing by the specific intersection where the drugs were discovered. Several sets of fingerprints were lifted from the “Ziploc” bags and the “Pringles” can but none matched those of Hodge or Flowers. (The State, in submitting the Pringles can into evidence, proposed the tenuous theory that if Hodge and Flowers had been eating potato chips, the greasy residue left on their fingers would preclude them from leaving prints.) When the state introduced the bags of methamphetamine in court, the substance emitted an extremely strong odor, typical of this type drug; however, ”

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

2. “We have established the requisite proof for constructive possession in a long line of cases concerning joint occupancy. Where contraband is discovered in jointly occupied premises, and there is no direct evidence that it belongs to a particular occupant, some additional factor must be present linking the accused to the contraband. The state must prove that the accused exercised care, control and management over the contraband. See Parette v. State, 301 Ark. 607 , 786 S.W.2d 817 (1990); Plotts v. State, 297 Ark. 66 , 759 S.W.2d 793 (1988); Osborne v. State, 278 Ark. 45 , 643 S.W.2d 251 (1982). The same analysis applies here. Certainly, where narcotics are found in an area entirely outside the control of the defendant and exposed to the public at large, the state must provide more definite factors linking the defendant to the contraband than were provided here.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 82 Ark. App. 496 - Garner v. State

3. “No one should be deprived of his liberty or property on mere suspicion or conjecture. Where inferences are relied upon, they should point to guilt so clearly that any other conclusion would be insufficient. This is regardless of how suspicious the circumstances are.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 51 Ark. App. 60 - Knight v. State