Woolridge v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Since the accused is charged with the unlawful possession of a narcotic the State must prove that he exercised care, control and management over the object and that he knew the object he possessed was contraband. E. g., Payne v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 480 S.W.2d 732 ; Ramos v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 102 ; Rodriguez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 541 . The mere presence of the accused at a place where narcotics are found does not of itself show possession. E. g., Harvey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 487 S.W.2d 75 ; Valdez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 481 S.W.2d 904 . See United States v. Romano, 382 U.S. 136 , 86 S.Ct. 279 , 15 L.Ed.2d 210 . Additional independent facts and circumstances must be established to prove the accused’s knowledge and control of the marihuana. E. g., Barnes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 504 S.W.2d 450 ; Wright v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 170 ; Valdez v. State, supra; Harvey v. State, supra; see, 92 A.L.R. 810 . “In this case, the record does not contain evidence linking the appellant to the marihuana found, in the car he had borrowed. The marihuana was not discovered in plain view. On the contrary, it required three inspections of the vehicle before the police discovered the contraband. No odor of marihuana was present, nor were seeds, papers, or particles found on the appellant. Cf. Powell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 502 S.W.2d 705 . Upon his arrest, appellant made no ‘furtive’ gestures. In fact, one of the defendants requested that the police return to the ve”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bowyer · Hazel v. State