435 Pa. Super. 410 - Commonwealth v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Commonwealth must prove both the possession of the controlled substance and the intent to deliver the controlled substance. It is well settled that all the facts and circumstances surrounding possession are relevant in making a determination of whether contraband was possessed with intent to deliver. In Pennsylvania, the intent to deliver may be inferred from possession of a large quantity of controlled substance. It follows that possession of a small amount of a controlled substance supports the conclusion that there is an absence of intent to deliver. button, it then becomes necessary to analyze other factors.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 351 - Commonwealth v. Ratsamy · 2006 Pa. Super. 177 - Commonwealth v. Brown

2. “Other factors to consider when determining whether a defendant intended to deliver a controlled substance include the manner in which the controlled substance was packaged, the behavior of the defendant, the presence of drug paraphernalia, and larges sums of cash found in possession of the defendant. The final factor to be considered is expert testimony. “Expert opinion testimony is admissible con cerning whether the facts surrounding the possession of controlled substances are consistent with an intent to deliver rather than with an intent to possess it for personal use.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Ratsamy