5 Cal. 3d 211 - People v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

138 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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) Unlawful possession of narcotics is established by proof: (a) that the accused exercised dominion and control (i. e., possession) over the contraband, (b) that he had knowledge of its presence, and (c) that the accused had knowledge that the material was a narcotic. (2) These necessary elements of unlawful possession may be established by circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from such evidence. (3) Proof of opportunity of access to a place where narcotics are found will not, without more, support a finding of unlawful possession. (4) But dominion and control (1-a) by the accused over the narcotic does not mean the narcotic needs to be found on his person nor does it mean that he must have had sole and exclusive use of the premises on which drugs are found. (5) Constructive possession is all that is necessary and .occurs when the accused maintains control or a right to control the narcotic; possession may be imputed when the contraband is found in a place which is immediately and exclusively accessible to the accused and subject to his dominion and control, or to the joint dominion and control of the accused and another. (6) If the premises on which the drugs are found are exclusively accessible to the accused and subject to his use, possession or control, knowledge of their presence on such premises (1-b) coupled with his ability to maintain dominion and control (1-a) may be inferred. (7) Even if the accused does not have exclusive control of the hi”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Glover v. State · 4 Ark. App. 326 - Llewellyn v. State

2. “the mere possession of a narcotic constitutes substantial evidence that the possessor of the narcotic knew of its nature. [Citations.]”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 19 Cal. App. 3d 960 - People v. Simmons · 151 Cal. App. 4th 951 - People v. Tripp

3. “"It is suggested that defendant's knowledge of the character of the tablets found in Shubin's car is supported by the very fact that he was in `possession' of those tablets. It is true that in People v. White, supra, 71 Cal.2d 80, 83 [, 75 Cal.Rptr. 208 , 450 P.2d 600 ] this court stated that `the mere possession of a narcotic constitutes substantial evidence that the possessor of the narcotic knew of its nature. (Citations.)' [Citations.] However, in our White case, where marijuana cigarettes and `roaches' were found in defendant's own bedroom, we used the word `possession' in an informal sense to denote the presence of contraband on one's person or among one's own personal effects, rather than to state a rule applicable to all possible situations in which one has dominion and control and immediate access to contraband (i.e., constructive possession). [ People v. Anderson (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 364 , 85 Cal.Rptr. 669 ] states the rule in these words: `Ordinarily the fact that a narcotic is found }n the personal effects of the defendant is compelling proof that defendant knew what he possessed and its nature. [Citation.] It would be most extraordinary that the defendant in this case would attempt to deny that she knew the nature of the green leafy substance which was wrapped in a cellophane bag within a box which she was carrying in her purse.', "In the instant case, on the other hand, the facts do not justify any reasonable inference that defendant knew the character of the dru”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 151 Cal. App. 4th 951 - People v. Tripp