5 Md. App. 571 - Boswell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 64 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘ ‘ The law concerning the effect of evidence showing the possession by an alleged thief of the property he is charged with having stolen is in an apparent state of confusion, due in many cases to loose and inexact methods of expression used in discussing the question. The principal difficulty lies in determining the effect of such evidence. The true rule is, without doubt, that the possession of the property by the defendant soon after the commission of the alleged crime is merely an evidentiary fact tending to establish guilt which should be submitted to the jury, to be considered in connection with all the other facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence. According to the weight of authority, it does not in any case raise a. presumption of law that the defendant committed the alleged larceny.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Davis v. State · Thomas v. State

2. ““The constitutional right of a defendant not to incriminate himself and the prohibition against adverse comment and inference from his failure to testify does not protect him from the probative force of the evidence against him. If he does not attempt to rebut the incriminating fact that he was the possessor of property recently stolen, he cannot, merely by remaining silent, escape the natural and reasonable inferences deducible from such fact.... Thus it is relevant for the defendant to offer evidence of facts and circumstances showing that his possession was innocent; for example, that he found the goods, that he came into possession under an honest belief that it belonged to him; that upon discovering the mistake, he had sought out the owner and paid the value of the property or returned the property itself; that he purchased the property. In explaining the possession he may prove from whom he got them and what the parties said at the time. And it is relevant for him to offer evidence of what he said, or what explanation he gave, at the time when he was first found with the property in his possession.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 36 Md. App. 502 - Cross v. State

3. ““* * * Of course the credibility of the witnesses explaining the defendant’s possession of the goods and the weight of the evidence with respect thereto are matters for the trier of fact as in the proof of any other fact.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 17 Md. App. 182 - Devan v. State