Scruggs v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If the premises on which the contraband is found is in joint, rather than exclusive, possession of a defendant, knowledge of the presence of the contraband on the premises and the accused's ability to maintain control over it will not be inferred, but must be established by independent proof. Such proof may consist either of evidence establishing that the accused had actual knowledge of the presence of the contraband, or of evidence of incriminating statements and circumstances, other than the mere location of the substance, from which a jury might lawfully infer knowledge by the accused of the presence of the contraband on the premises. Mere proximity to contraband is not sufficient to establish constructive possession.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. J.M. v. State · 839 So. 2d 832 - JM v. State

2. “To establish constructive possession of a controlled substance, the state must show that the accused had dominion and control over the contraband, knowledge of its presence, the ability to maintain control over it, and knowledge of its illicit nature.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 839 So. 2d 832 - JM v. State

3. “Because appellant did not have actual, physical possession of the cocaine, the state was required to prove that he was in constructive possession of it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 839 So. 2d 832 - JM v. State