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.
21 Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Archer v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025“A person’s ownership or occupancy of premises on which the subject item is found, proximity to the item, and statements or conduct concerning the location of the item are probative factors to be considered in determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of possession.” Id. at 233 (citing Archer v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 1, 12 (1997)). 2010Archer v. Commonwealth, 26 Va.App. 1, 12 , 492 S.E.2d 826, 831-32 (1997). | 10 | 10 |
Wright v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2023“A person’s ownership or occupancy of premises on which the subject item is found, proximity to the item, and statements or conduct concerning the location of the item are probative factors to be considered in determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of possession.” Id. (quoting Wright v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 266, 274 (2009)). 2022“A person’s ownership or occupancy of premises on which the subject item is found, proximity to the item, and statements or conduct concerning the location of the item are probative factors to be considered in determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of possession.” Id. (quoting Wright v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 266, 274 (2009)). | 5 | 5 |
Gregory v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2017“A person’s ownership or occupancy of premises on which the subject item is found, proximity to the item, and statements or conduct concerning the location of the item are probative factors to be considered in determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of possession.” Gregory v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 393, 398 , 504 S.E.2d 886, 888 (1998). 2017“A person’s ownership or occupancy of premises on which the subject item is found, proximity to the item, and statements or conduct concerning the location of the item are probative factors to be considered in determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of possession.” Gregory v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 393, 398 , 504 S.E.2d 886, 888 (1998). | 3 | 3 |
Watts v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2024“A person’s ownership or occupancy of premises on which the subject item is found, proximity to the item, and statements or conduct concerning the location of the item are probative factors to be considered in determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of possession.” Watts v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 217, 232 (2010). 2022“A person’s ownership or occupancy of premises on which the subject item is found, proximity to the item, and statements or conduct concerning the location of the item are probative factors to be considered in determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of possession.” Watts v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 217, 233 (2010). | 2 | 2 |
Logan v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2023“A person’s ownership or occupancy of premises on which the subject item is found, proximity to the item, and statements or conduct concerning the location of the item are probative factors to be considered in determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of possession.” Id. (quoting Wright v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 266, 274 (2009)). 2022“A person’s ownership or occupancy of premises on which the subject item is found, proximity to the item, and statements or conduct concerning the location of the item are probative factors to be considered in determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of possession.” Id. (quoting Wright v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 266, 274 (2009)). | 1 | 4 |
Wells v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2025“Possession need not be actual, exclusive, or lengthy in order to support a conviction; instead, the statute criminalizes constructive or joint possession of illegal drugs of any duration.” Wells v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 775, 781 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Ritter v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2024And “[t]he defendant may be shown to have had constructive possession by establishing that the drugs involved were subject to his dominion or control.” Ritter v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 732, 741-42 (1970) (finding that a defendant’s admission: “It must be mine, it’s got my name on it,” when questioned about a package of marijuana found in his family’s mailbox was sufficient to establish constructive joint possession of the drugs under a predecessor statute). - 13 - To satisfy the knowledge requirement, the Commonwealth must show, by direct or circumstantial evidence that the “defendant . . . kno | 1 | 1 |
Sierra v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2024And “[t]he defendant may be shown to have had constructive possession by establishing that the drugs involved were subject to his dominion or control.” Ritter v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 732, 741-42 (1970) (finding that a defendant’s admission: “It must be mine, it’s got my name on it,” when questioned about a package of marijuana found in his family’s mailbox was sufficient to establish constructive joint possession of the drugs under a predecessor statute). - 13 - To satisfy the knowledge requirement, the Commonwealth must show, by direct or circumstantial evidence that the “defendant . . . kno | 1 | 1 |
Tina Lasha Hall, a/k/a Tina Lasha Waller v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen1 sentence2022“A person’s ownership or occupancy of premises on which the subject item is found, proximity to the item, and statements or conduct concerning the location of the item are probative factors to be considered in determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of possession.” Hall v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 437, 448 (2018) (quoting Wright v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 266, 274 (2009)). | 1 | 1 |
Spivey v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1998“Circumstantial evidence of possession is sufficient to support a conviction provided it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Spivey v. Commonwealth, 23 Va.App. 715, 724 , 479 S.E.2d 543, 548 (1997). 1 A person’s ownership or occupancy of premises on which the subject item is found, proximity to the item, and statements or conduct concerning the location of the item are probative factors to be considered in determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of possession. 1998“Circumstantial evidence of possession is sufficient to support a conviction provided it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Spivey v. Commonwealth, 23 Va.App. 715, 724 , 479 S.E.2d 543, 548 (1997). 1 A person’s ownership or occupancy of premises on which the subject item is found, proximity to the item, and statements or conduct concerning the location of the item are probative factors to be considered in determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of possession. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1998See id. at 725 , 479 S.E.2d at 548 ; Logan v. Commonwealth, 19 Va.App. 437, 444-45 , 452 S.E.2d 364, 369 (1994) (en banc); Burchette v. Commonwealth, 15 Va.App. 432, 435 , 425 S.E.2d 81, 83 (1992); Davis v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 728, 733, 406 S.E.2d 922, 924-25 (1991). 1998See id. at 725 , 479 S.E.2d at 548 ; Logan v. Commonwealth, 19 Va.App. 437, 444-45 , 452 S.E.2d 364, 369 (1994) (en banc); Burchette v. Commonwealth, 15 Va.App. 432, 435 , 425 S.E.2d 81, 83 (1992); Davis v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 728, 733, 406 S.E.2d 922, 924-25 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Burchette v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1998See id. at 725 , 479 S.E.2d at 548 ; Logan v. Commonwealth, 19 Va.App. 437, 444-45 , 452 S.E.2d 364, 369 (1994) (en banc); Burchette v. Commonwealth, 15 Va.App. 432, 435 , 425 S.E.2d 81, 83 (1992); Davis v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 728, 733, 406 S.E.2d 922, 924-25 (1991). 1998See id. at 725 , 479 S.E.2d at 548 ; Logan v. Commonwealth, 19 Va.App. 437, 444-45 , 452 S.E.2d 364, 369 (1994) (en banc); Burchette v. Commonwealth, 15 Va.App. 432, 435 , 425 S.E.2d 81, 83 (1992); Davis v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 728, 733, 406 S.E.2d 922, 924-25 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Powers v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2025“A person’s ownership or occupancy of premises on which the subject item is found, proximity to the item, and statements or conduct concerning the location of the item are probative factors to be considered in determining whether the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of possession.” Id. at 233 (citing Archer v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 1, 12 (1997)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.