Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 2016
14 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 249 So. 2d 414 - Curry v. State · 478 So. 2d 266 - Keys v. State · 355 So. 2d 1378 - Powell v. State · Hamburg v. State · 483 So. 2d 331 - Pool v. State
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]here must be sufficient facts to warrant a finding that defendant was aware of the presence and character of the particular substance and was intentionally and consciously in possession of it. It need not be actual physical possession. Constructive possession may be shown by establishing that the drug involved was subject due to his dominion or control. Proximity is usually an essential element, but by itself is not adequate in the absence of other incriminating circumstances.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]n this case there is nothing to connect Jones to this marijuana except for his presence in the car. Jones was not the one spotted by Lillian Johnson in the Amoco station as allegedly having marijuana; Jones was not connected with the jacket in the backseat of the car containing marijuana; Jones did not own or drive the car in question; Jones did not testify at trial; Jawara either denied or did not know of any connection between Jones and the marijuana in the car. The evidence was insufficient to show Jones's constructive possession of the marijuana. . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Where the premises upon which contraband is found is not in the exclusive possession of the accused, the accused is entitled to acquittal, absent some competent evidence connecting him with the contraband.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Buggs 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.