State v. Moiser’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defendant’s contention is without merit. In a similar case, United States v. McMillan, 508 F.2d 101 (8th Cir.1974), a police officer participated in the recording of an informant’s telephone conversation with a defendant to arrange a controlled buy. During the recording, the officer could only hear informant’s part of the conversation. The officer then played back the tape and was able to identify defendant’s voice. The court stated that the “standard for the admissibility of an opinion as to the identity of a speaker is merely that the identifier has heard the voice of the alleged speaker at any time.” ... Defendant’s argument that the police officers’ identification of defendant is tainted because they had not heard defendant’s voice prior to the date of the transaction misstates the applicable law. The test is whether, at any time, the officers had heard defendant’s voice from which they could compare the voice heard on the tape and through the body microphone. Officer Crowley testified that he heard defendant’s voice during the execution of the search warrant, and that defendant’s voice and the voice on the tape “were from the same person.” ... Furthermore, no specialized training in voice identification is required. Eichelberger v. State, 524 S.W.2d 890, 894 (Mo.App.1975). Thus, we find the officers’ testimony sufficient to establish defendant’s identity as the speaker on the tape.”

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

2. “The evidence at most indicated joint, rather than exclusive, control of the premises. “The mere presence of the accused on the shared premises where the drugs are found does not suffice to convict for possession. State v. Wiley, 522 S.W.2d 281, 292 [22-25] (Mo. banc 1975). Nor does proximity to the contraband, alone, even as to a substance in plain sight, tend to prove ownership or possession as among several persons who share the premises. State v. Moore, 659 S.W.2d 252, 255 [3-5] (Mo.App.1983).” State v. Bowyer, 693 S.W.2d 845, 847 (Mo.App.1985).”

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

3. “[A] person, with the knowledge of the presence and nature of [the contraband], has actual or constructive possession of [it]. A person has actual possession if he has the [contraband] on his person or within easy reach and convenient control A person who, although not in actual possession, has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over the [contraband] either directly or through another person ... is in constructive possession of it.”

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