728 So. 2d 1189 - Lambert v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

cited by 6 later decisions

states following

June 2003

most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 684 So. 2d 736 - Chicone v. State · 697 So. 2d 84 - Standard Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases · Gaines v. State · 707 So. 2d 771 - Oliver v. State · 658 So. 2d 1007 - Chicone 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“We stated earlier that the State must prove guilty knowledge to establish the defendant's possession of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia. At trial, Chicone proffered instructions that required the jury to find that the substance he possessed was known to him to be cocaine and that the object he possessed was known to him to be drug paraphernalia in order to convict him. The trial court denied these instructions and gave the standard jury instructions set out above along with the standard jury instructions on reasonable doubt, which the trial judge read twice. While the existing jury instructions are adequate in requiring "knowledge of the presence of the substance," we agree that, if specifically requested by a defendant, the trial court should expressly indicate to jurors that guilty knowledge means the defendant must have knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance allegedly possessed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 808 So. 2d 166 - Scott v. State
“1. DOES CHICONE V. STATE, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996), RECEDE FROM STATE V. MEDLIN, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla.1973) (INDICATING THAT THE STATE MUST PROVE GUILTY KNOWLEDGE IN CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION BUT NOT ACTUAL POSSESSION CASES)? 2. DOES CHICONE APPLY WHEN THE DEFENSE PRESENTS NO EVIDENCE? 3. DOES CHICONE CREATE A NEW ELEMENT TO THE CRIME OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 764 So. 2d 22 - Williamson v. State
“Before you can find the defendant guilty of possession of cocaine, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [the defendant] had knowledge of the presence of the substance and the substance that he possessed was known to him to be cocaine.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 782 So. 2d 410 - Forget 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.