Moffatt v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`Such proof may consist either of evidence of actual knowledge of the contraband's presence or evidence of incriminating statements and circumstances from which the jury might lawfully infer the accused's actual knowledge of the presence of contraband.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ogle v. State · 975 So. 2d 595 - State v. Holland

2. “While appellant, sitting in the passenger seat, might have seen the bag if he looked for it or reached under the seat for it, this does not support a finding that appellant had knowledge of the presence of the cocaine or at any time controlled it. No fingerprints were found on the cocaine bag. While the state notes that the cocaine bag was located near where appellant's feet would have been, we find this argument merely illustrates that the state has failed to demonstrate "circumstances other than the mere location of the substance" from which the jury might lawfully infer appellant's knowledge of the presence of cocaine.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 736 So. 2d 133 - Hill v. State

3. “[I]f the premises where the contraband is found is in joint possession of the accused, knowledge of the presence of the contraband and the ability to control it will not be inferred from ownership or possession but must be established by independent proof.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 145 Md. App. 400 - Smith v. State