Goliday v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In order to prove constructive possession, the State must show that the defendant has both (1) the intent to maintain dominion and control and (2) the capability to maintain dominion and control over the contraband.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Anthony A. Keith v. State of Indiana · Grim v. State

2. “"This knowledge may be inferred from either the exclusive dominion and control over the premise containing the contraband or, if the control is non-exclusive, evidence of additional cireum-stances pointing to the defendant's knowledge of the presence of the contraband." The defendant's proximity to contraband "in plain view" is an "additional cireumstance" that will support an inference of intent in this context. 6 Also, "a substance can be possessed jointly by the defendant and another without any showing that the defendant had actual physical control thereof." However, when possession is nonexelu-sive the State must demonstrate that the defendant had actual knowledge of the presence and illegal character of the substance.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Matthews v. State · Halsema v. State

3. “when the State shows that the defendant is able to reduce the [contraband] to the defendant's personal possession.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Anthony A. Keith v. State of Indiana