Hudson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... there must be sufficient facts to warrant a finding that defendant was aware of the presence and character of the particular substance and was intentionally and consciously in possession of it. It need not be actual physical possession. Constructive possession may be shown by establishing that the drug involved was subjected to his dominion or control. Proximity is usually an essential element, but by itself is not adequate in the absence of other incriminating circumstances.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 506 So. 2d 254 - Boches v. State · 735 So. 2d 1025 - Hamm v. State

2. “The only evidence of constructive possession was: (1) the admissions of Randolph and Vincent that they had known Blue for about three weeks, had driven in the car previously with him, and on one occasion Vincent had driven in the car alone; (2) that when the marijuana was found, Vincent was in the backseat asleep and Randolph was in a cafe in front of which the car was parked; and (3) that Vincent told the officers Randolph had driven the car to the cafe with him and Blue as passengers, although Vincent denied this at trial and contended that he did not know who drove the car because he was asleep. There is no evidence in this case that the defendants exercised dominion and control over the marijuana. First, even the proximity is questionable since the marijuana was not inside the car, but secreted under the hood of the car. Second, even if such were sufficient to satisfy the proximity requirement, nevertheless, there is a total absence of "other incriminating circumstances" as required by the Curry decision. We also note that the test of Curry is dominion and control over the marijuana not dominion and control over the automobile. The proof arguably might show temporary dominion and control over the automobile, however absent other circumstances, this alone will not suffice to prove dominion and control over the marijuana in a situation such as here presented.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 735 So. 2d 1025 - Hamm v. State