Boyington v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We can find no case in Alabama upholding a conviction for possession of a controlled substance where the controlled substance was not confiscated from the defendant and identified or where the defendant was not in constructive possession of the controlled substance. Absent that factual scenario, the element of possession could not be established. "In the present case, considering that the officers did not see Boyington in possession of marijuana, that Boyington did not have in his possession or was not in constructive possession of marijuana when he was apprehended, that it is not a criminal offense to smell like marijuana, and that there was a possibility that the odor of marijuana was the result of other bar patrons' smoking marijuana in the area before the officers arrived, the evidence presented at trial did not establish that Boyington was or had been in possession of marijuana."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. G.E.G. v. State · Powell v. State

2. “"`"This Court is well aware that where `circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it will support a conviction as strongly as direct evidence.' Newsome v. State , 570 So. 2d 703 , 710 (Ala. Cr. App. 1989). Accord, Jones v. State , 514 So. 2d 1060 , 1067 (Ala. Cr. App.), cert. denied, 514 So. 2d 1068 (Ala. 1987). However, `no rule is more fundamental or better settled than that convictions cannot be predicated upon surmise, speculation, and suspicion to establish the accused's criminal agency in the offense charged.' Benefield v. State , 286 Ala. 722 , 724 , 246 So. 2d 483 , 485 (1971), quoted in Crafts v. State , 439 So. 2d 1323 , 1325 (Ala. Cr. App. 1983)." "` Atwell v. State , 594 So. 2d 202 , 213 (Ala. Cr. App. 1991), cert. denied, 594 So. 2d 214 (Ala. 1992). "`"`"While a jury is under a duty to draw whatever permissible inferences it may from the evidence, in c luding circumstantial evidence, mere speculation, conjecture, or surmise that the accused is *Page 12 guilty of the offense charged does not authorize a conviction. [Citations omitted.] A defendant should not be convicted on mere suspicion or out of fear that he might have committed the crime. Harnage v. State , 49 Ala. App. 563 , 274 So. 2d 333 (1972). While reasonable inferences from the evidence may furnish a basis for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, Royals v. State , 36 Ala. App. 11 , 56 So. 2d 363 , cert. denied, 256 Ala. 390 , 56 So. 2d 368 (1951), mere possibility, suspicion, or guesswork,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 74 So. 3d 487 - J.M.A. v. State of Alabama.

3. ““While a jury is under a duty to draw whatever permissible inferences it may from the evidence, including circumstantial evidence, mere speculation, conjecture, or surmise that the accused is guilty of the offense charged does not authorize a conviction. A defendant should not be convicted on mere suspicion or out of fear that he might have committed the crime. While reasonable inferences from the evidence may furnish a basis for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, mere possibility, suspicion, or guesswork, no matter how strong, will not overturn the presumption of innocence. “An inference is merely a permissible deduction from the proven facts which the jury may accept or reject or give such probative value to as it wishes. It is a logical and reasonable deduction from the evidence and is not supposition or conjecture. Guesswork is not a substitute. A supposition is a conjecture based on the possibility or probability that a thing could have or may have occurred without proof that it did occur. The possibility that a thing may occur is not alone evidence, even circumstantially, that the thing did occur.””

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