511 So. 2d 397 - Murphy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably 573 So. 2d 306 - State v. Smith (1990), 705 So. 2d 90 - Dupree v. State (1998)
28 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 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · 336 So. 2d 127 - Hively v. State · 397 So. 2d 738 - Wale v. State · 355 So. 2d 166 - Manning v. State · 408 So. 2d 1086 - Green v. State
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Such proof may consist either of evidence establishing that the accused had actual knowledge of the presence of the contraband, or of evidence of incriminating statements and circumstances other than the mere location of the substance, from which a jury might lawfully infer knowledge by the accused of the presence of the contraband on the premises.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ball v. State · Schmitt v. State“[W]hen contraband is found in a vehicle which is in the possession of two or more persons, circumstantial evidence of defendant's knowledge of the presence of the contraband must be consistent with the accused's guilt, inconsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the place in which the contraband is found is not in the exclusive possession of the accused, but only in his joint possession, his knowledge of the presence of the contraband on the premises and his ability to maintain control over it will not be inferred, but must be established by extra proof. Such proof may consist of evidence establishing that the accused had actual knowledge of the presence of the contraband in the place where it is found, or circumstantial evidence from which a jury might properly infer that the accused had knowledge of the presence of the contraband.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.