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.
13 Virginia opinions name it 3 courts 1978–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stillwell v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2022An accommodation defense “provides for mitigation of punishment where one convicted of possession with intent to distribute is found not to be a dealer in drugs, but one ‘motivated by a desire to accommodate a friend without any intent to profit or to induce or to encourage the use of drugs.’” Barlow v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 421, 430 (1998) (quoting Stillwell v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 214, 219-20 (1978)). 2016Further, the accommodation defense does not apply to “one who was normally engaged in the drug traffic.” Stillwell, 219 Va. at 219 , 247 S.E.2d at 364 . | 4 | 7 |
Heacock v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2023As pertinent here, under Code § 18.2-248(D), if a defendant proves that he possessed drugs with the intent to distribute “only as an accommodation to another individual” and “not with intent to profit thereby from any consideration received or expected,” then “he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.” “[A] defendant who invokes an accommodation defense has the burden of proving the elements of that defense - 11 - by a preponderance of the evidence.” Heacock v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 397, 406 (1984); see also Winston v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 901, 905 (1993). 1999Defendant next contends that the court erred in failing to find the illicit transactions were merely “accommodations” contemplated by Code § 18.2-248(D). 4 “[A] defendant who invokes an accommodation defense has the burden of proving the elements of that defense by a preponderance of the evidence.” Heacock v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 397, 406 , 323 S.E.2d 90, 95 (1984); see Hudspith v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 136, 137-38 , 435 S.E.2d 4 “[T]he General Assembly [prescribed a] reduced penalty . . . when the unlawful distribution was made ‘not by a dealer in drugs, a pusher or one who was normally | 4 | 4 |
Foster v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2022“An accommodation defense is a defense that pertains only to the penalty imposed on one found guilty of drug distribution.” Porter v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 302, 308-09 (2016) (emphasis added) (quoting Foster, 38 Va. App. at 555 ). 2020In asserting an accommodation defense pursuant to Code § 18.2-248(D), appellant had the burden of overcoming the statute’s “presumption against an accommodation distribution” and was “require[d] . . . to prove accommodation by a preponderance of the evidence.” Foster v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 549, 557 (2002). | 3 | 4 |
Hudspith v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1999Defendant next contends that the court erred in failing to find the illicit transactions were merely “accommodations” contemplated by Code § 18.2-248(D). 4 “[A] defendant who invokes an accommodation defense has the burden of proving the elements of that defense by a preponderance of the evidence.” Heacock v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 397, 406 , 323 S.E.2d 90, 95 (1984); see Hudspith v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 136, 137-38 , 435 S.E.2d 4 “[T]he General Assembly [prescribed a] reduced penalty . . . when the unlawful distribution was made ‘not by a dealer in drugs, a pusher or one who was normally 1996The most recent pronouncement on the scope of the accommodation defense in Virginia came from the Court of Appeals in Hudspith v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 136 (1993). | 2 | 3 |
Barlow v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2022An accommodation defense “provides for mitigation of punishment where one convicted of possession with intent to distribute is found not to be a dealer in drugs, but one ‘motivated by a desire to accommodate a friend without any intent to profit or to induce or to encourage the use of drugs.’” Barlow v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 421, 430 (1998) (quoting Stillwell v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 214, 219-20 (1978)). 2002See Code § 18.2-248(D); Stillwell v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 214, 223 , 247 S.E.2d 360, 365 (1978) (an accommodation defense “is relevant to the determination of the proper degree of punishment, but only after guilt has been established”); Barlow v. Commonwealth, 26 Va.App. 421, 430 , 494 S.E.2d 901, 905 (1998) (the code section “provides for mitigation of punishment where one convicted of possession with intent to distribute is found not to be a dealer in drugs, but one ‘motivated by a desire to accommodate a friend without any intent to profit or to induce or to encourage the use of drugs’ ” ( | 2 | 2 |
Gardner v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1997The accommodation defense is not available where the distribution was made "with intent to profit thereby from any consideration received or expected." Code § 18.2-248(D); Heacock, 228 Va. at 407 , 323 S.E.2d at 96 ; see also Stillwell v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 214, 219 , 247 S.E.2d 360, 363-64 (1978); Gardner v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 5, 7 , 225 S.E.2d 354, 356 (1976). 1997The accommodation defense is not available where the distribution was made "with intent to profit thereby from any consideration received or expected." Code § 18.2-248(D); Heacock, 228 Va. at 407 , 323 S.E.2d at 96 ; see also Stillwell v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 214, 219 , 247 S.E.2d 360, 363-64 (1978); Gardner v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 5, 7 , 225 S.E.2d 354, 356 (1976). | 1 | 3 |
King v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2022“The Supreme Court has interpreted the term ‘profit’ to mean ‘a commercial transaction in which there is a consideration involved.’” Id. at 308 (quoting King v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 171, 174 (1978)). 1996On August 31, 1978, the Court decided both Stillwell v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 214 (1978), and King v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 171 (1978). | 1 | 2 |
Brown v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2002He does not provide any legal support for this proposition; he simply cites Brown v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 753 , 213 S.E.2d 764 (1975), in his argument. 2002He does not provide any legal support for this proposition; he simply cites Brown v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 753 , 213 S.E.2d 764 (1975), in his argument. | 1 | 2 |
Joyce v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2025An accommodation claim raises an issue of fact that is resolved by the fact finder and which we review “with the highest degree of appellate deference.” Id. (quoting Joyce v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 646, 664 (2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Winston v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2023As pertinent here, under Code § 18.2-248(D), if a defendant proves that he possessed drugs with the intent to distribute “only as an accommodation to another individual” and “not with intent to profit thereby from any consideration received or expected,” then “he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.” “[A] defendant who invokes an accommodation defense has the burden of proving the elements of that defense - 11 - by a preponderance of the evidence.” Heacock v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 397, 406 (1984); see also Winston v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 901, 905 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Cynthia Leatrice Porter v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen2 sentences2022“An accommodation defense is a defense that pertains only to the penalty imposed on one found guilty of drug distribution.” Porter v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 302, 308-09 (2016) (emphasis added) (quoting Foster, 38 Va. App. at 555 ). 2022“An accommodation defense is a defense that pertains only to the penalty imposed on one found guilty of drug distribution.” Porter v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 302, 308-09 (2016) (emphasis added) (quoting Foster, 38 Va. App. at 555 ). | 1 | 1 |
Marable v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1999See Marable v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 505, 509-10 , 500 S.E.2d 233, 235 (1998) (“In its role of judging witness credibility, the fact-finder is entitled to disbelieve the self-serving testimony of the accused and to conclude that [he] is lying to conceal his guilt.”). 1999See Marable v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 505, 509-10 , 500 S.E.2d 233, 235 (1998) (“In its role of judging witness credibility, the fact-finder is entitled to disbelieve the self-serving testimony of the accused and to conclude that [he] is lying to conceal his guilt.”). | 1 | 1 |
Boone v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1998Boone v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 130, 131 , 415 S.E.2d 250, 251 (1992). 1998Boone v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 130, 131 , 415 S.E.2d 250, 251 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Higginbotham v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1997Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352 , 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). "[A] defendant who invokes an accommodation defense has the burden of proving the elements of that defense by a preponderance of the evidence." Heacock v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 397, 406 , 323 S.E.2d 90, 95 (1984). 1997Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352 , 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). "[A] defendant who invokes an accommodation defense has the burden of proving the elements of that defense by a preponderance of the evidence." Heacock v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 397, 406 , 323 S.E.2d 90, 95 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jefferson v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2002Further, in Stillwell, 219 Va. 214 , 247 S.E.2d 360 , the Supreme Court explained that an accommodation defense is a matter to be considered during the sentencing phase of a trial and not the guilt determination phase; While there are dicta in our opinions in Jefferson [v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 432 , 201 S.E.2d 749 (1974),] ... and Brown ... that could lead to a contrary interpretation ... [t]he provisions of § 18.2-248(a), which deal with the reduced penalty contingent upon proof of an accommodation gift, distribution or possession of marijuana operate only to mitigate the degree of criminali 2002Further, in Stillwell, 219 Va. 214 , 247 S.E.2d 360 , the Supreme Court explained that an accommodation defense is a matter to be considered during the sentencing phase of a trial and not the guilt determination phase; While there are dicta in our opinions in Jefferson [v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 432 , 201 S.E.2d 749 (1974),] ... and Brown ... that could lead to a contrary interpretation ... [t]he provisions of § 18.2-248(a), which deal with the reduced penalty contingent upon proof of an accommodation gift, distribution or possession of marijuana operate only to mitigate the degree of criminali | 2 | 1978–2002 |
Mullaney v. Wilbur
green
1 sentence1978He relied specifically upon the reasoning of Mullaney v. Wilbur, supra. Thompson was convicted and petitioned this Court for a writ of error, which we denied on August 26, 1976. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.