Roberts v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““However in Corbin v. State, 55 Ala.App. 33 , 312 So.2d 604 (1975), this court held that it is not necessary for the state to prove that possession of marijuana was for personal use, since possession for personal use is a defensive matter. Possession for personal use is the exception to Section 258(47) and provides a lesser punishment for persons found in possession of marijuana for their personal use only on first conviction. Palmer v. State, 54 Ala.App. 707, 710-711 , 312 So.2d 399 (1975). Showing possession for personal use is a matter for defense and the burden of adducing evidence on this issue is upon the accused just as in a prosecution for the possession of prescribed drugs, the burden is on the accused to show that the drugs were lawfully prescribed. See Knox v. State, 50 Ala.App. 494 , 280 So.2d 200 (1973). In a prosecution for the unlawful possession of morphine, the defendant has the burden of bringing himself within any exception or exemption provided under the statute creating the offense. Fuller v. State, 39 Ala.App. 219 , 96 So.2d 829 (1957), citing authority at 39 Ala.App. 221 , 96 So.2d 829 . The burden is on the accused to show that a statutory exemption or exception is applicable, and the state does not have the burden of proving that the accused does not come within excepted categories in the statute. 28 C.J.S. Drugs and Narcotics Supplement Section 190 at p. 279. “Under Section 258(47) the degree of possession, whether a felony or a misdemeanor, depends ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Taylor v. State · 435 So. 2d 200 - Cason v. State

2. ““The evidence presented raised a question of fact for the jury. Such evidence, if believed, is sufficient to support the conviction and the denial of a motion to exclude the State’s evidence or the refusal to give the affirmative charge does not constitute error. Van Nostrand v. State, 56 Ala.App. 141 , 319 So.2d 760 (1975)””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rowell v. State · Andrews v. State

3. “Constructive possession may be determined by weighing those facts which tend to support the defendant's necessary control over the substance against those facts which demonstrate a lack of dominion and control.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. German v. State · 401 So. 2d 148 - Crane v. State