State v. Funk’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
1 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably State v. Barber (1982), State v. Quinn (1978)
1 district · 24 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Chimel v. California · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Vale v. Louisiana · People v. Francis · 23 Ill. 2d 306 - The PEOPLE v. Nettles
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This inference is based largely upon the nature of the commodity and the manner in which its illegal traffic is conducted. By law the use of narcotics, except for specified medicinal purposes, is rigidly condemned. Because of this illegitimate nature of narcotics, they are sold for exorbitant sums on the black market and are therefore of great value to the person possessing them. Furthermore, since their mere possession may subject such person to severe criminal consequences, the narcotics traffic is conducted with the utmost secrecy and care. Human experience teaches that narcotics are rarely, if ever, found unaccountably in a person's living quarters. [T]herefore, ... where narcotics are found on the premises under the control of defendant, this fact, in and of itself, gives rise to an inference of knowledge and possession by him which may be sufficient to sustain a conviction for unlawful possession of narcotics, absent other facts and circumstances which might leave in the mind of the jury, or of the court where a jury is waived, a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Drabek“where one has exclusive possession of a home or apartment in which narcotics are found, it may be inferred, even in the absence of other incriminating evidence, that such person knew of the presence of the narcotics and had control of them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Drabek“where use and control of the premises is not exclusive, this predicate is diluted and the inference is no longer compelling in the absence of some further evidence or admission connecting the defendant with the illegal drugs.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Drabek
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.