479 So. 2d 1368 - White v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'(1) actual or potential physical control (2) intention to exercise dominion and (3) external manifestations of intent and control.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 533 So. 2d 645 - Carlisle v. State · 584 So. 2d 953 - Meadows v. State

2. “"The act of the appellant throwing the brown paper bag out of the car window, coupled with surrounding circumstances, was sufficient to prove the appellant's possession of the marijuana and his knowledge of the presence of marijuana in the brown bag in question. The appellant's actions showed his actual physical control of the bag containing marijuana, his intention to exercise dominion of it and an external manifestation of his intent and control. Furthermore, the act of throwing the bag out of the window when the car was stopped by the police tended to show the appellant's guilty conscience. It is obvious that he threw the bag away so that the marijuana would not be found in the car or on his person. "`... [C]ircumstantial evidence sufficient to support a jury finding of guilt [of possession of marijuana] may be found in the accumulation of several relatively insignificant pieces of evidence; or it may be presented in the form of a single highly significant or incriminating event.' Jones, supra, at 7."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Forte v. State · 533 So. 2d 645 - Carlisle v. State

3. “"While we acknowledge that defendants who are jointly tried will encounter tactical problems, we do not hold that these problems necessarily deny the defendants a fair trial. The provisions of Rule 15.4 [Ala.Temp. Rules of Criminal Procedure] concerning joinder and consolidation are designed to promote judicial economy and efficiency. At the same time, the provisions of Rule 15.4 pertaining to severence are designed to ensure that defendants are not prejudiced by the joinder to the extent that they are denied a fair trial. This rule was promulgated with the knowledge of *Page 809 the tactical problems likely to be faced by defendants who are tried together."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 530 So. 2d 849 - Wallace v. State · 518 So. 2d 801 - Miller v. State