745 So. 2d 1087 - Earle v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
August 2015
most recently cited
17 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 559 So. 2d 187 - State v. Law · Brown v. State · 705 So. 2d 90 - Dupree v. State · 397 So. 2d 738 - Wale v. State · Agee 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To establish constructive possession, the State must prove (1) that the defendant had “dominion and control over the contraband” and (2) that the defendant had “knowledge the contraband was within his presence.” The defendant’s knowledge of the presence of the drugs will be inferred if the premises where the drugs are found are in the exclusive possession of the defendant. Where, however, the premises are in the defendant’s and another’s joint possession, knowledge of the contraband’s presence and the defendant’s ability to control the same will not be inferred and must be established by independent evidence. Such evidence “may consist of evidence that the defendant had actual knowledge of the presence of the contraband or evidence of incriminating statements or circumstances, other than simple proximity to the contraband, from which the jury could infer the defendant’s knowledge.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Constructive possession exists where a defendant does not have physical possession of contraband but (1) knows it is within his presence, (2) has the ability to maintain control over it, and (3) knows of the illicit nature of the contraband.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. EHA v. State“actual knowledge of the [drug's] presence, evidence of incriminating statements or actions, or other circumstances from which a jury might lawfully infer the defendant's actual knowledge of the presence of the [drugs].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.