Ferrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 34 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. “[a]s the operator of the car, Ferrell had dominion and control over the contraband discovered in the car. However, he was not the owner of the car; therefore, the State was required to establish additional incriminating circumstances in order to prove constructive possession. The State claims that the location of the matchbox next to the driver's seat and the 15 hours which Ferrell had possession of the car amounted to additional incriminating circumstances. These contentions are incorrect. Just as in Fultz [v. State, 573 So.2d 689 (Miss. 1990)], the contraband was not positioned in such a way that its presence would be reasonably apparent to a person riding in the car. The mere fact that the matchbox was only a matter of inches from where the defendant was sitting, rather than in the trunk, does not overcome the fact that the crack was cloaked. . . . Furthermore, Ferrell's possession of the car for a mere 15 hours does not qualify as an incriminating circumstance.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kerns v. State · Johnson v. State

2. “A presumption of constructive possession arises against the owner of premises upon which contraband is found. Hamburg v. State, 248 So.2d 430, 432 (Miss.1971); Pool v. State, 483 So.2d 331, 336-37 (Miss.1986). However, when contraband is found on premises which are not owned by a defendant, mere physical proximity to the contraband does not, in itself, show constructive possession. As we stated in Fultz v. State, 573 So.2d 689, 690 (Miss.1990), "the state must show additional incriminating circumstances to justify a finding of constructive possession."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lonnie Jones v. State of Mississippi · Haynes v. State

3. “[i]n the case of a search incident to arrest, the exception to the warrant requirement is founded upon the reasonable concern that the arrestee might have a weapon on his person or within reach, and that he may attempt to destroy evidence which is within his grasp.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 798 So. 2d 1241 - Jones v. State · 823 So. 2d 1210 - Williams v. State