604 So. 2d 137 - State v. Major’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 2016
9 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 Jackson v. Virginia · 384 So. 2d 355 - State v. Bonanno · 523 So. 2d 1305 - State v. Mussall · 448 So. 2d 676 - State v. Captville · 433 So. 2d 104 - State v. Square
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“With regard to the element of constructive or actual possession, evidence adduced at trial indicates only that defendant signed tickets to pawn firearms on three separate occasions. The pawn tickets constitute circumstantial evidence of the fact that defendant possessed the weapons. The pawn inventory print-out and the original pawn transaction tickets only indicate that defendant entered both ... pawn shops to pawn firearms. Although defendant conceded in his statement to police and on the stand that he signed all three pawn tickets and was physically present at the pawn shop, he maintained he was simply lending his identification in order to pawn his acquaintances’ guns. Even though the pawn ticket does not necessarily prove that the person who signed the ticket physically possessed the item (without additional evidence produced from a pawn broker or eye witness),defendant’s signature on the pawn ticket does suggest two possibilities: 1) either defendant brought the gun into the pawn shop and pawned the gun for money, or 2) defendant accompanied a friend to the pawn shop, but did not handle the weapon. In the first instance, defendant would have actual physical possession, [and] thus be guilty as charged. However, in the second instance he could arguably be innocent. As previously indicated, the defendant took the witness stand in his own defense and testified he did not handle the guns. The jury’s verdict indicated that they did not accept his testimony as truthful. The tr”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Loar v. State
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.