State v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably State v. Roberts (1988), State v. Brown (1991)
29 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. National Bank · State v. Cabbage · State v. Grace · Liakas 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before a person can be found to constructively possess a drug, it must appear that the person has “the power and intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over ... [the drugs] either directly or through others.” State v. Williams, supra [ 503 F.2d 50 (6th Cir. 1974)] quoting from United States v. Craig, 522 F.2d 29 (6th Cir.1975). See United States v. Holland, 445 F.2d 701, 703 (D.C.Cir.1971). In other words, “constructive possession is the ability to reduce an object to actual possession.” State v. Williams, supra, quoting from United States v. Martinez, 588 F.2d 495 (5th Cir.1979). See Harris v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 904, 906 (5th Cir.1981). The mere presence of a person in an area where drugs are discovered is not, alone, sufficient to support a finding that the person possessed the drugs. Harris v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 904, 906 (5th Cir. 1981). See Dishman v. State [3 Tenn.Cr. App. 725] 460 S.W.2d 855, 858 (Tenn. Crim.App.1970); Whited v. State, 483 S.W.2d 594 (Tenn.Crim.App.1972). Likewise, mere association with a person who does in fact control the drugs or property where the drugs are discovered is insufficient to support a finding that the person possessed the drugs. Harris v. Black-bum, supra. See Dishman v. State, supra; Whited v. State, supra. We recognize that a criminal offense may be established exclusively by circumstantial evidence. Marable v. State, 203 Tenn. 440 , 313 S.W.2d 451 (1958); State v. Hailey, 658 S.W.2d 547, 552 (Tenn.Crim.App.1983).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Before an exhibit may be considered by the court, it must have been (a) received into evidence, (b) marked by the trial judge, clerk or court reporter as having been received into evidence as an exhibit, (c) authenticated by the trial judge, and (d) included in the transcript of the evidence transmitted to this court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brewer
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.