678 So. 2d 255 - D.B. 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. ““In Alabama, there is no statutory presumption that the presence of a forbidden weapon in an automobile is presumptive evidence of its possession by all occupants of the vehicle. See Annot., 87 A.L.R.3d 949 (1978). Instead, the principles enunciated in Ex parte Story, 435 So.2d 1365 (Ala. 1983), which involved a prosecution for the possession of a controlled substance found in an automobile, govern this case: “‘[T]he mere presence of a defendant in an automobile containing contraband is not sufficient in and of itself to support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Parks v. State, 46 Ala.App. 722 , 248 So.2d 761 (1971); Rueffert v. State, 46 Ala.App. 36 , 237 So.2d 520 (1970). The State must introduce additional evidence from which the defendant’s unlawful possession of the contraband could be inferred in order to support a conviction. See 57 A.L.R.3d 1319 . Knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance by the defendant must also be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Temple v. State, 366 So.2d 740 (Ala. Or. App. 1978).’ “Story, 435 So.2d at 1366 . [[Image here]] “ ‘[T]he possibility that a thing may occur is not alone evidence even circumstantially, that the thing did occur. [[Image here]] “ ‘The only inference raised by the state’s evidence presented in this case is that it was possible that this appellant may have committed this offense. Beyond this possibility, resort must be had to surmise, speculation, and suspicion to establish the appellan”

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