Sturgeon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““1. To convict for unlawful possession of marihuana it is necessary to prove that the accused knew of the presence of the marihuana and that the same was under his control and dominion. “2. Possession may be proved by circumstantial evidence, but a conviction on circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained if the proof does not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; and proof amounting only to a strong suspicion or mere probability is insufficient. “4. Joint possession cannot be established by the fact the defendant is or has been in the company of one having possession of the marihuana in the absence of additional independent factors linking defendant with it. “5. The defendant does not have the burden of establishing lack of knowledge and control as the burden is on the state to prove facts from which knowledge and control can be shown independent of mere proximity to marihuana.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McBride v. State

2. ““Affiant futher states that he has received information from an informant who has heretofore proven to be reliable that this house contains Marijuana.” In the Davis case, supra, the Affidavit stated: “Affiant further states that he has observed known users of marijuana congregated at this residence, and that he has received information that there is a marijuana party going on at the residence at this time, this information being received from an informant heretofore proven to be reliable.” In the Limón case, supra, the Affidavit stated: “Affiant further states that he has received information from a reliable source that the above subjects have in their possession marijuana; affiant further states that known narcotic users have been frequenting the above address.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Goodwin v. State

3. ““ * * * This affidavit is more significant for what it does not state, rather than what is alleged therein. There are no details as to how or when the informant had been used previously, or in what way he had proved to be reliable. There are no details as to when or how he saw the listed property. There are no details as to when or how officers made independent investigation. There are no details as to how the investigation disclosed that the informant’s information was true and correct. In short, the affidavit is void of factual details from which to conclude that the informant was credible or his information reliable. Rather the information is nothing more than conclusionary statements.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Guthrey v. State