Rowell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. . . . "The State presented sufficient evidence to prove constructive possession. "`[A] defendant's mere presence in an automobile in which an illegal substance is found will not support his conviction for possession of that substance unless the state introduces other evidence in support of the defendant's possession. Story v. State, 435 So.2d 1360 (Ala.Cr. App.1982), rev'd on other grounds, 435 So.2d 1365 (Ala.1983). The kinds of other evidence or circumstances that could provide the additional support necessary to show possession are unlimited and will vary with each case. Temple v. State, 366 So.2d 740 (Ala.Cr.App.1978).' Perry v. State, 534 So.2d 1126, 1128 (Ala. Cr.App.1988). `The defendant's knowledge of the presence of the substance may be shown by circumstantial evidence.' Perry, 534 So.2d at 1128 . `Knowledge is usually established by circumstantial evidence.' Rowell v. State, 666 So.2d 825, 827 (Ala.Cr. App.1993). `”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 673 So. 2d 851 - Bright v. State

2. “[e]vidence that the defendant was involved in the sale of drugs may be highly material and relevant in a prosecution for possession of a controlled substance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 666 So. 2d 830 - Rowell v. State

3. “In another context, [the Court of Criminal Appeals] has observed that possession and sale constitute 'inevitably or necessarily incidental' conduct,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 666 So. 2d 830 - Rowell v. State