70 Okla. Crim. 404 - Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This court is very hesitant about affirming a conviction for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor where the amount found in possession of the offender is less than one quart and were it not for all the other attendant circumstances, as hereinabove outlined, we would not hesitate to reverse this case because of the insufficient quantity seized by the officers on the occasion of their raid. “An intent to sell is the gist of the offense of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. The possession in excess of one quart is prima facie evidence of an intent to sell under our statute, 37 O. S. 1941 § 82, but that does not mean that a conviction may not be had where there is possession of less than one quart. “We also have a statute which provides that the payment by the defendant of the special liquor dealer’s tax to the United States Government, which may be shown by the possession of a federal retail liquor dealer’s license, constitutes- prima facie evidence of an intent to sell, where the accused is found in possession of intoxicating liquors. 37 O. S. 1941 § 81. * * * “In view of these circumstances, we are impelled to the conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 85 Okla. Crim. 296 - Gentry v. State

2. ““Ordinarily, upon a trial under an information charging that the defend ant had possession of intoxicating liquors with the intention of violating the prohibitory liquor law, evidence of the general reputation of defendant’s home as a place where intoxicating liquors are kept for sale is incompetent to prove the charge. “Where evidence discloses the possession of intoxicating liquor in a place of public resort, fitted up with all the fixtures and appurtenances of a liquor saloon, the general reputation of such place as a place where intoxicating liquors are kept for sale is admissible on the question of criminal intent, where the crime charged is the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same. “Proof that defendant’s home had the general reputation of being a place of public resort is not a sufficient predicate to authorize the admission of evidence of the general reputation of such place as a place where intoxicating liquor is kept for sale.””

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