730 So. 2d 561 - Naylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Jones v. State , this [c]ourt discussed the theory of constructive possession stating that: Since Jones was not caught in actual possession, the rules concerning constructive possession come into play, as stated by this [c]ourt in Pool v. State, 483 So.2d 331, 336-37 (Miss.1986); The theory of constructive possession has been explained, in Curry v. State, as follows: [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. The theory was further defined in Hamburg v. State, that "one who is the owner in possession of the premises ... is presumed to be in constructive possession of the articles found in or on the property possessed." This presumption is rebuttable, however, and does not relieve the State of its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, `[w]here 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.' In Ferrell v. State, this [c]ourt again reversed and rendered a conviction for posse”

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

2. “we must, with respect to each element of the offense, consider all of the evidence —not just the evidence which supports the case for the prosecution—in the light most favorable to the verdict. The credible evidence which is consistent with guilt must be accepted as true. The prosecution must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Matters regarding the weight and credibility to be accorded the evidence are to be resolved by the jury. We may reverse only where, with respect to one or more of the elements of the offense charged, the evidence so considered is such that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty.”

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

3. “[T]here must be sufficient facts to warrant a finding that defendant was aware of the presence of the particular substance and was intentionally and consciously in possession of it. It need not be actual or physical possession. Constructive possession may be shown by establishing that the drug involved was subject to his dominion or control. Proximity is usually an essential element, but by itself is not adequate in the absence of other incriminating circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 804 So. 2d 967 - Martin v. State