Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lunsford v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2023This Court disagrees. “[W]hen a challenge to a conviction rests on a claim that the evidence was insufficient because the trial court improperly admitted evidence, the reviewing court shall consider all - 15 - evidence admitted at trial to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.” Code § 19.2-324.1 (emphasis added); see also Lunsford v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 59, 62 (2009) (“When determining the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider all admitted evidence, including the evidence appellant here asserts was inadmissible.”). 2016And “[w]hen determining the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider all admitted evidence, including the evidence appellant here asserts was inadmissible.” Lunsford v. Commonwealth, 55 Va.App. 59, 62 , 683 S.E.2d 831, 833 (2009); see Code § 19.2-324.1 (stating in relevant part, “In appeals ..., when a challenge to a conviction rests on a claim that the evidence was insufficient because the trial court improperly admitted evidence, the reviewing court shall consider all evidence admitted at trial to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction”). | 2 | 2 |
Jeffrey D. Wells v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen1 sentence2020See Wells v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 722, 726 (2016). -9- “It is well settled what ‘[w]hen a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court.’” McArthur v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 352 , 367 (2020) (quoting Rowland v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 396, 399 (2011)). | 1 | 1 |
Rowland v. Com.green1 sentence2020See Wells v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 722, 726 (2016). -9- “It is well settled what ‘[w]hen a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court.’” McArthur v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 352 , 367 (2020) (quoting Rowland v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 396, 399 (2011)). | 1 | 1 |
Marquis Durrell Jennings v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen2 sentences2016See Jennings v. Commonwealth, 65 Va.App. 669, 681 , 779 S.E.2d 864, 870 (2015) (“In appeals to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, when a challenge to a conviction rests on a claim that the evidence was insufficient because the trial *727 court improperly admitted evidence, the reviewing court shall consider all evidence admitted at trial to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.” (quoting Code § 19.2-324.1)). 2016See Jennings v. Commonwealth, 65 Va.App. 669, 681 , 779 S.E.2d 864, 870 (2015) (“In appeals to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, when a challenge to a conviction rests on a claim that the evidence was insufficient because the trial *727 court improperly admitted evidence, the reviewing court shall consider all evidence admitted at trial to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.” (quoting Code § 19.2-324.1)). | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. McNealgreen2 sentences2015STANDARD OF REVIEW Code § 19.2-324.11 provides “when a challenge to a conviction rests on a claim that the evidence was insufficient because the trial court improperly admitted evidence, the reviewing court shall consider all evidence admitted at trial to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.” If this Court were to determine that the evidence was erroneously admitted and not harmless error, “the case shall be remanded for a new trial if the Commonwealth elects to have a new trial.” Code § 19.2-324.1. 1 In granting appellant’s petition for appeal, this Court 2015STANDARD OF REVIEW Code § 19.2-324.11 provides “when a challenge to a conviction rests on a claim that the evidence was insufficient because the trial court improperly admitted evidence, the reviewing court shall consider all evidence admitted at trial to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.” If this Court were to determine that the evidence was erroneously admitted and not harmless error, “the case shall be remanded for a new trial if the Commonwealth elects to have a new trial.” Code § 19.2-324.1. 1 In granting appellant’s petition for appeal, this Court | 1 | 1 |
Vincent v. Com.green2 sentences2015STANDARD OF REVIEW Code § 19.2-324.11 provides “when a challenge to a conviction rests on a claim that the evidence was insufficient because the trial court improperly admitted evidence, the reviewing court shall consider all evidence admitted at trial to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.” If this Court were to determine that the evidence was erroneously admitted and not harmless error, “the case shall be remanded for a new trial if the Commonwealth elects to have a new trial.” Code § 19.2-324.1. 1 In granting appellant’s petition for appeal, this Court 2015STANDARD OF REVIEW Code § 19.2-324.11 provides “when a challenge to a conviction rests on a claim that the evidence was insufficient because the trial court improperly admitted evidence, the reviewing court shall consider all evidence admitted at trial to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.” If this Court were to determine that the evidence was erroneously admitted and not harmless error, “the case shall be remanded for a new trial if the Commonwealth elects to have a new trial.” Code § 19.2-324.1. 1 In granting appellant’s petition for appeal, this Court | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2020“The evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the prevailing party below.” Id. 6 We note that under Code § 19.2-324.1 “when a challenge to a conviction rests on a claim that the evidence was insufficient because the trial court improperly admitted evidence, the reviewing court shall consider all evidence admitted at trial to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.” Thus, in considering whether the evidence before the trial court was sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction, we do not omit from our evaluation any evidence t | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Royals v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2016Although the radar reading was admitted into evidence without objection, Wells relies upon Royals v. Commonwealth, 198 Va. 876 , 96 S.E.2d 812 (1957), and Gray v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 663 , 446 S.E.2d 480 (1994), to argue that the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of proving that the radar device had been properly set up and tested. 2016Although the radar reading was admitted into evidence without objection, Wells relies upon Royals v. Commonwealth, 198 Va. 876 , 96 S.E.2d 812 (1957), and Gray v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 663 , 446 S.E.2d 480 (1994), to argue that the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of proving that the radar device had been properly set up and tested. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gray v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2016Although the radar reading was admitted into evidence without objection, Wells relies upon Royals v. Commonwealth, 198 Va. 876 , 96 S.E.2d 812 (1957), and Gray v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 663 , 446 S.E.2d 480 (1994), to argue that the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of proving that the radar device had been properly set up and tested. 2016Although the radar reading was admitted into evidence without objection, Wells relies upon Royals v. Commonwealth, 198 Va. 876 , 96 S.E.2d 812 (1957), and Gray v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 663 , 446 S.E.2d 480 (1994), to argue that the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of proving that the radar device had been properly set up and tested. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.