76 Md. App. 677 - Wink v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[Wink] was charged with violating Rule 8 of his probation, which required that he not ‘illegally possess, use or sell any narcotic drug, controlled dangerous substance, or related paraphernalia.’ At the revocation hearing, the State presented evidence that, upon execution of a search warrant at [Wink’s] home, the following items were seized: from a kitchen cabinet, two bottles of parsley flakes; from the kitchen trash can, an empty parsley flake bottle, a vanilla extract bottle, and a sandwich bag with parsley flake residue; from the refrigerator, a glass jar containing several foil-wrapped packets of parsley, and two plastic film cannisters filled with parsley flakes; from the master bedroom, a set of scales, several cut squares of aluminum foil, and a C & P Telephone bill addressed to [Wink]. The State also presented expert testimony that parsley flakes are commonly used as a vehicle for, or diluent of, liquid PCP, and that individual quantities of PCP are commonly distributed as foil-wrapped packets of PCP-laced parsley. “The court concluded that [Wink] had violated his probation by possessing drug paraphernalia, revoked [Wink’s] probation, and reimposed two years of the original sentence, with credit for eighteen months already served.””

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

2. “Moreover, we think the nature of revocation proceedings militate in favor of the conclusion that “reasonably satisfied” is no more stringent a standard than “preponderance.” The proceedings are informal, see Scott v. State, 238 Md. 265, 271 , 208 A.2d 575 (1965); they are not subject to all of the limitations and restrictions which apply to a criminal trial, Edwardsen v. State, 220 Md. 82, 88 , 151 A.2d 132 (1959) and a probationer does not enjoy the procedural rights attendant to a criminal trial. See [sic] Smith [v. State], 306 Md. [1] at 6, 506 A.2d 1165 [(1986)]. Evidence inadmissible in a criminal trial may be admissible in revocation proceedings^] See State v. Fuller, 308 Md. 547, 553 , 520 A.2d 1315 (1987) (reason ably reliable hearsay) and Chase v. State, 309 Md. 224, 251 , 522 A.2d 1348 (1987) (evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure). And, of course, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. Herold [v. State, 52 Md.App. 295 , 449 A.2d 429 (1982)], supra. The nature of probation inclines us to the same conclusion; it is, after all, a discretionary matter----”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 87 Md. App. 299 - Kitchen v. State

3. ““Appellant was present on the premises when the search warrant was executed. As we have already noted, one of the items seized was a telephone bill addressed to appellant at those premises. We think that evidence sufficient to support an inference that appellant had a possessory interest in the premises. That, in turn, is sufficient to support the further inference that he, at least constructively, possessed the ‘controlled paraphernalia’ found on the premises. See Folk v. State, 11 Md.App. 508, 518 , 275 A.2d 184 (1971).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 78 Md. App. 287 - Sun Kin Chan v. State