8 Md. App. 224 - Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The fact inferred from such guilty possession by the accused fixes his identity as the offender — that he was the criminal agent. Proof of the corpus delicti of the crime may establish the offense he committed. Thus where a burglary is proved to have been committed, the possessor of goods stolen therein may be found to be the burglar, Anglin v. State, 1 Md. App. 85 ; where a storehouse breaking is proved the possessor of goods taken therefrom may be found to be the one who broke the storehouse, Jones v. State, 5 Md. App. 180 ; where a larceny is proved the possessor of goods stolen may be found to be the thief, Frey v. State, 3 Md. App. 38 . However, if there is credible evidence that the possessor of the goods was not a principal in the burglary or storehouse breaking or larceny, he may be found to be a receiver of stolen goods, Boblits v. State, 4 Md. App. 534 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 36 Md. App. 502 - Cross v. State

2. ““The term ‘exclusive’ is also a relative one and its meaning as applied to a given case will vary with the circumstances of the case. We discussed fully the meaning of ‘exclusive’ in this context in Boswell and Poe v. State, 5 Md. App. 571, 576-579 . We said that it is in the sense of a personal possession and an assertion of property, express or implied by the exercise of dominion and right of disposal, that the possession is exclusive. So the possession of stolen property is exclusive if it shows exclusion of all persons who are not parties to the crime, although as to accomplices, the possession of one is the possession of all. Thus the possession to be exclusive, need not necessarily be in one person and may be a joint possession of several persons. See Davis and Napier v. State, 7 Md. App. 667 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 36 Md. App. 502 - Cross v. State