592 So. 2d 642 - Menefee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 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. 1981), cert. denied, 405 So.2d 721 (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).”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hudson v. State · D.B. v. State

2. “"`In order to sustain a conviction for possession of controlled substances, there must be sufficient evidence of either actual or constructive possession. Radke v. State , 52 Ala. App. 397 , 293 So.2d 312 (1973), affirmed, 292 Ala. 290 , 293 So.2d 314 (1974). "Just as the mere presence of a person at the time and place of a crime is not sufficient to justify a conviction for the commission of that crime, . . . so the mere presence of the accused in a place where the controlled substance is found is not in and of itself evidence of possession." German v. State , 429 So.2d 1138 , 1140 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982).'”

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

3. “[A] motion for mistrial made at the conclusion of a witness's testimony did not preserve the issue of admitting the witness's answer which came in without contemporaneous objection or motion to strike.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 690 So. 2d 449 - Wilson v. State