Crawford v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “". . . Nevertheless, the critical issue in the disposition of this case is the absence of direct evidence to prove possession of the heroin by the appellant. To prove possession the State must show that appellant had care, custody, control and management of the thing possessed either alone or jointly with others. Garza v. State, 468 S.W.2d 440 (Tex.Cr. App.1971). "This court has for some time held that the distinction between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence is that the latter applies directly to the ultimate fact to be proved, while circumstantial evidence is the direct proof of a minor fact which, by logical inference, demonstrates the fact to be proved. Beason v. State, 43 Tex.Cr.R. 442 , 67 S.W. 96 (1902); Brown v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 449 , 72 S.W.2d 269 (1934); Ramos v. State, 478 S.W.2d 102 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972) (on State's Motion for Rehearing). In the instant case, no witness saw appellant actually possess the heroin. Moreover, the residence where the heroin was discovered did not belong to appellant; thus no question of sole access is raised. Instead, the heroin was found at the residence of another person in which appellant was present at the time of the search. Therefore, the ultimate fact of whether appellant possessed the heroin found was not proved by direct evidence. In the absence of direct evidence, the refusal to grant a requested charge on circumstantial evidence is reversible error. Farris v. State, 496 S. W.2d 55 (Tex.Cr.App.1973)."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Selman v. State · Hankins v. State

2. ““ . . . Deputy Thomas E. Barker, one of the officers executing the warrant, testified that he first saw appellant in a bedroom with three other persons. Apparently there were at least eight individuals in the house. When Deputy Barker entered the room, appellant attempted to evade him by diving from the bed into a closet where he hid under a pile of clothes. This ruse was unsuccessful, however, for Deputy Barker was able to ferret out appellant and place him under arrest. Upon removing appellant from the closet, the deputy noticed a recent puncture mark on his left arm and blood ‘dribbling down’ from the wound. At this time appellant did not appear to be under the influence of narcotics, but by the time he was placed in jail he seemed to be ‘high.’ Various quantities of narcotics and narcotics paraphernalia were found through the house. On the bed where appellant and two other persons were sitting, a plastic vial of heroin was found. On a nearby nightstand, the deputies discovered spoons and a syringe.” Crawford v. State, supra, at 769. “ . . . Officer Marriott testified that he stood about two feet from the open rear window of the bungalow and looked into the lighted kitchen and saw Samuel Burke rolling a cigarette with a substance he obtained from a match box. Officer Marriott further testified that he smelled the strong odor of burning marijuana and saw pills on the kitchen table. He also saw appellants Phillips, Rogers and Selman, in the kitchen with Burke. He identified ”

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