Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 329 SW3D 400 - State v. Tomes

State v. Tomes’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Beggs · State v. Booth · State v. Power · Murphy v. Roper · State v. Metcalf

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

  1. “Constructive possession requires proof that a defendant had access to and control over the premises where the drugs were found. [State v.] Metcalf, 182 S.W.3d [272] at 275 [ (Mo.App. E.D.2006)]. In cases where the premises were jointly possessed, further evidence is required to connect a defendant to the controlled substance. Id. In determining the sufficiency of such evidence, we consider the totality of the circumstances, including: “routine access to the area where the substances are kept, the presence of large quantities of the substance at the arrest scene, admissions by the accused, being in close proximity to the substances or drug paraphernalia in plain view of the law enforcement officers, the mixing of defendant’s personal belongings with the drugs, or flight by a defendant upon realizing the presence of law enforcement officials.” Id; see also State v. Beggs, 186 S.W.3d 306, 317 (Mo.App. W.D.2005).”
    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.