958 So. 2d 496 - Mitchell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To establish constructive possession of a controlled substance, the State must show that [defendant] had dominion and control over the contraband, that he had knowledge that the contraband was within his presence, and that he had knowledge of the illicit nature of the contraband. If the premises on which the contraband is found are in joint, rather than exclusive possession of [defendant], knowledge of the presence of the contraband on the premises and [defendant’s] ability to maintain control over it will not be inferred. The State must establish knowledge and [defendant’s] ability to maintain control over it by independent proof of [defendant’s] actual knowledge, or evidence of incriminating statements and circumstances other than mere location of the substance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Basulto-Rodriguez v. State

2. “[t]he mere fact that some contraband was in plain view does not permit the inference that the defendant knew of the entire amount of contraband found upon a search of a residence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 975 So. 2d 593 - Robinson v. State

3. “knowledge of the contraband's presence and the ability to control it will not be inferred from the ownership but must be established by independent proof.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 975 So. 2d 593 - Robinson v. State