531 So. 2d 682 - Robinette v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"'When constructive possession is relied on, the prosecution must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the presence of the controlled substances. Campbell v. State , [ 439 So.2d 718 (Ala.Cr.App.), rev'd on other grounds, 439 So.2d 723 (Ala. 1983)]; Yarbrough v. State , 405 So.2d 721 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 405 So.2d 725 (Ala. 1981). This knowledge may be inferred from the accused's exclusive possession, ownership, and control of the premises. Temple v. State , 366 So.2d 740 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978). When the accused is not in exclusive possession of the premises, however, this knowledge may not be inferred unless there are other circumstances tending to buttress this inference. Korreckt v. State , 507 So.2d 558 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986); Temple v. State , [ 366 So.2d at 743 ]. While non-exclusive possession may raise a suspicion that all the occupants had knowledge of the contraband found, a mere suspicion is not enough. Some evidence that connects a defendant with the contraband is required. Grubbs v. State , 462 So.2d 995 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Temple v. State .' " Robinette v. State , 531 So.2d 682 , 686 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), rev'd on other grounds , 531 So.2d 697 (Ala. 1988).”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Meeker v. State · R.W. v. State

2. “"The action of the trial court in denying a motion for acquittal, in denying a motion to exclude the evidence, . . . and in denying a motion for a new trial, must be reviewed by determining whether there existed legal evidence before the jury, at the time the motions were made, from which the jury by fair inference could have found the defendant guilty [beyond a reasonable doubt]. Thomas v. State , 363 So.2d 1020 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978)."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. JCC v. State · BB v. State

3. “"`To the extent that the vehicle search cases continue to emphasize the existence of such [exigent] circumstances, they may have somewhat greater legitimacy. It is well to stress once again, however, that these cases generally utilize a very loose and uncritical type of exigent circumstances inquiry, quite different from that which would be employed if the warrantless search were of premises. In this sense, then, these decisions are unquestionably relying also upon the notion that vehicles carry with them a lesser expectation of privacy. ( This means that genuine exigent circumstances must exist when the car can be searched only by first intruding inside private premises to gain access to the vehicle, for the lesser expectation of privacy does not also extend to premises housing a vehicle. )' (Footnote omitted, emphasis added [in Robinette ].) "Accordingly, out of abundance of caution, we have reviewed the circumstances of the instant search for the existence of exigent circumstances and conclude that the search of Robinette's vehicle, following his activities in the house leading to his arrest, was based on probable cause and exigent circumstances and, thus, did not violate the Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 948 So. 2d 583 - Harris v. State