455 So. 2d 295 - Lyons v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"(2) Any person who knowingly sells, manufactures, delivers or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of 28 grams or more of cocaine or of any mixture containing cocaine , described in section 20-2-25 (1), is guilty of a felony, which felony shall be known as 'trafficking in cocaine.' " (Emphasis supplied.)”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McCray v. State · Brown v. State

2. ““Where the accused is not in exclusive possession of the premises, his knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance may not be inferred ‘unless there are other circumstances tending to buttress this inference.’ Temple v. State, 366 So.2d 740, 743 (Ala.Cr.App.1979). When constructive possession is relied upon, there must be some fact or circumstance which will afford the jury a ‘rational inference’ that the accused had knowledge of the drugs. Ex parte Campbell, 439 So.2d 723, 724 (Ala.1983).””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hunter v. State · Williams v. State

3. “"`The accused's knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance may be proved by "his declarations, or admissions, and contradictory statements, and explanations made by him." 28 C.J.S. Supp., Drugs and Narcotics , § 204 (1974).' Cason v. State , 435 So. 200 , 202 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). See also Ex parte Story , 435 So.2d 1365 (Ala. 1983)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 592 So. 2d 642 - Menefee v. State · 494 So. 2d 804 - Shaneyfelt v. State