Pollan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

63 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980), the Supreme Court held that when no objection to an alleged conflict of interest is raised at trial the defendant must show an actual conflict which adversely affected his lawyer’s performance. The mere showing of a possible conflict of interest is not sufficient to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court has granted relief in those cases in which a defendant has shown a conflict of interest which has actually affected the adequacy of his attorney’s performance. See Ex parte Parham, 611 S.W.2d 103 (1981); Ex parte Alaniz, Tex.Cr.App., 583 S.W.2d 380 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ferguson v. State · Wolf v. State

2. ““In order to establish the unlawful possession of a controlled substance the State must prove two elements: (1) that the accused exercised care, control and management over the contraband, and (2) that the accused knew that the matter possessed was contraband. Pollan v. State, 612 S.W.2d 594 , Tex.Cr.App.; Dubry v. State, 582 S.W.2d 841 , Tex.Cr.App. It is not necessary to prove that the accused had exclusive possession of the narcotics in question. Damron v. State, 570 S.W.2d 933 , Tex.Cr.App. When the accused is not in exclusive possession of the place where the substance is found, it cannot be concluded that the accused had knowledge of and control over the contraband unless there are additional independent facts and circumstances which affirmatively link the accused to the contraband. Wiersing v. State, 571 S.W.2d 188 , Tex.Cr.App. “The affirmative link can be established by showing additional facts and circumstances which indicate the accused’s knowledge and control of the contraband. Norman v. State, 588 S.W.2d 340 , Tex.Cr.App. Among such additional facts which can establish the affirmative link are: the marihuana was in open or plain view, Hughes v. State, 612 S.W.2d 581 , Tex.Cr.App; the place where the contraband was found was enclosed, Mendoza v. State, 583 S.W.2d 396 , Tex.Cr.App.; the narcotic was conveniently accessible to the accused, Hahn v. State, 502 S.W.2d 724 , Tex.Cr.App.; the accused was the owner of the place where the contraband was found, Moulden v. S”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Guiton v. State