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 2 courts 2000–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Andrews v. Com.green2 sentences2018Andrews, 280 Va. at 287-88, 699 S.E.2d at 269-70 (emphasis added). 2018Andrews , 280 Va. at 287-88 , 699 S.E.2d at 269-70 (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Coleman v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2010Asserting that claims of double jeopardy are resolved based on an abstract analysis of the applicable statutes, rather than the specific facts of the individual case, Coleman v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 196, 200 , 539 S.E.2d 732, 734 (2001), the Commonwealth responds that multiple death sentences for convictions under Code §§ 18.2-31(7) and -31(8) do not offend the double jeopardy prohibition against multiple punishments. 2010Asserting that claims of double jeopardy are resolved based on an abstract analysis of the applicable statutes, rather than the specific facts of the individual case, Coleman v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 196, 200 , 539 S.E.2d 732, 734 (2001), the Commonwealth responds that multiple death sentences for convictions under Code §§ 18.2-31(7) and -31(8) do not offend the double jeopardy prohibition against multiple punishments. | 1 | 1 |
Payne v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2010This is so, the Commonwealth asserts, because each offense *267 requires proof of a fact that the other does not under the test prescribed for analyzing such cases by Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); see also Payne, 257 Va. at 228 , 509 S.E.2d at 300 . 2010This is so, the Commonwealth asserts, because each offense *267 requires proof of a fact that the other does not under the test prescribed for analyzing such cases by Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); see also Payne, 257 Va. at 228 , 509 S.E.2d at 300 . | 1 | 1 |
Tibbs v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2000See id. at 705, 525 S.E.2d at 587-88 . | 1 | 1 |
George v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2000Evidence of motivation goes to a person’s intent and can help prove that a robbery actually was committed or attempted, see George, 242 Va. at 279-80 , 411 S.E.2d at 21-22 (evidence established that defendant “harbored intention” and, therefore, “was motivated” both to molest and to rob victim; holding that such evidence established murder “so closely related in time, place and causal connection to the robbery that the killing became part of the same criminal enterprise as the robbery”), or it may be employed to show that a possible post-murder robbery was sufficiently connected to the murder. 2000Evidence of motivation goes to a person’s intent and can help prove that a robbery actually was committed or attempted, see George, 242 Va. at 279-80 , 411 S.E.2d at 21-22 (evidence established that defendant “harbored intention” and, therefore, “was motivated” both to molest and to rob victim; holding that such evidence established murder “so closely related in time, place and causal connection to the robbery that the killing became part of the same criminal enterprise as the robbery”), or it may be employed to show that a possible post-murder robbery was sufficiently connected to the murder. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ball v. United States
green
2 sentences2010Andrews asserts that "[u]nder these conditions, the remedy is to set aside one of the capital murder convictions." In a typical case where a defendant has been subject to impermissible multiple punishments, "the only remedy consistent with [the legislature's] intent is for the [trial court], where the sentencing responsibility resides, to exercise its discretion to vacate one of the underlying convictions." Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864 , 105 S.Ct. 1668 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985). 2010Andrews asserts that "[u]nder these conditions, the remedy is to set aside one of the capital murder convictions." In a typical case where a defendant has been subject to impermissible multiple punishments, "the only remedy consistent with [the legislature's] intent is for the [trial court], where the sentencing responsibility resides, to exercise its discretion to vacate one of the underlying convictions." Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864 , 105 S.Ct. 1668 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences2010This is so, the Commonwealth asserts, because each offense *267 requires proof of a fact that the other does not under the test prescribed for analyzing such cases by Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); see also Payne, 257 Va. at 228 , 509 S.E.2d at 300 . 2010This is so, the Commonwealth asserts, because each offense *267 requires proof of a fact that the other does not under the test prescribed for analyzing such cases by Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); see also Payne, 257 Va. at 228 , 509 S.E.2d at 300 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.