Watt v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 29 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “''Nonetheless, onee the State has obtained a magistrate's determination of probable cause, a presumption of validity obtains. Franks, supra. See generally, 2 J. Varon, Searches Seizures and Immunities 876 (1974). It is therefore incumbent upon the defendant to make some showing that the facts stated were untrue or tainted by illegality, if the reasonable inferences to be derived from the common-sense reading of the affidavit are that no such falsehood or illegality exists. Reviewing courts, including the trial court on a motion to suppress, must pay substantial deference to the magistrate's determination of probable cause. Aguilar v. Texas, (1964) 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 ; Riddle, supra. Thus, it is entirely proper to require of one challenging the legality of a search, in order to suppress evidence, that he establish an invasion of his rights. Jones v. United States, (1960) 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725, 731 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 ."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Johnson v. State · Stephenson v. State

2. “"In order to establish possession of a controlled substance, proof of actual possession is not required. Johnson v. State (1978) [176] Ind.App. [567], 376 N.E.2d 542 ; Phillips v. State, (1974) 160 Ind.App. [647], 313 N.E.2d 101 . Nor must the possession be exclusive. Ludlow v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 302 N.E.2d 838 , 843 rev'd on other grds, 262 Ind. 266 , 814 N.E.2d 750 . Non-exelusive constructive possession is sufficient. See Martin v. State (1978) [175] Ind.App. [503], 372 N.E.2d 1194 . Our Supreme Court has defined construe, tive possession as 'an intent and capability to maintain control and dominion' over the contraband. Thomas v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 1 , 291 N.E.2d 557, 558 . Accord, Edwards v. State (1979) [179] Ind.App. [363], 835 N.E.2d 496 , Hutcherson v. State (1978) [178] Ind.App. [8], 381 N.E.2d 877 ; Mills v. State (1978) [177] Ind.App. [432], 379 N.E.2d 1023 . Proof of a possessory interest in the premises in which a controlled substance is found is adequate to show the capability to maintain control and dominion over the substance. Hutcherson, supra; Mills, supra; Corrao v. State (1972), 154 Ind.App. 525 , 290 N.E.2d 484 . However, when a person does not have exclusive possession of the premises, 'mere presence' in the place is not sufficient proof of intent to possess the substance. See Ledcke v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 382 , 296 N.E.2d 412 . The element of intent is proved by evidence of the accused's knowledge of the nature of the substance and its pres”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Snyder v. State · Crabtree v. State

3. “an intent and capability to maintain control and dominion”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Crabtree v. State · Parson v. State