75 Ohio App. 3d 518 - State v. Lynch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The crime of drug abuse contains no element concerning the quantity of illegal drugs possessed, and so it may be concluded that any quantity is sufficient to satisfy the statute, including a mere residue on an object, so long as it is possessed knowingly. Also, presence of a residue of controlled substance is not an element of a drug paraphernalia offense, but merely a factor or evidence which may be considered in proving the offense. Therefore, the fact that one possesses a residue of controlled substance does not necessarily compel a finding of guilt of a paraphernalia charge.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Csokmay, Unpublished Decision (3-22-2007)

2. “Allied offenses of similar import are offenses the elements of which correspond to such a degree that the commission of one will result in the commission of the other. Newark v. Vazirani (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 81 , 549 N.E.2d 520 . The elements of drug abuse and possession of paraphernalia do not so correspond. One may be in possession of drugs, but not paraphernalia. One may possess paraphernalia without possessing drugs. R.C. 2925.11 and 2925.14 are not, therefore, allied offenses of similar import.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bowden, Unpublished Decision (7-6-2006)

3. “(C)(1) No person shall knowingly use, or possess with purpose to use, drug paraphernalia.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Yurco, 07caa040019 (12-18-2007)