735 So. 2d 1025 - Hamm v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[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 to his dominion or control. Proximity is usually an essential element, but by itself is not adequate in the absence of other incriminating circumstances.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Marvin Rerocukus Demond Carver v. State of Mississippi · Fox v. State

2. “[a] presumption of constructive possession arises against the owner of premises upon which contraband is found.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tawana Terrell Johnson v. State of Mississippi · Gray v. State

3. “There must be sufficient facts to warrant a finding that [the] 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 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 · from the majority
   e.g. Dampeer v. State