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.
8 Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2023Wilkerson was convicted under Code § 18.2-250, which proscribes the “knowing[] or intentional[] . . . possess[ion] [of] a controlled substance unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a [qualifying] practitioner[.]” To prove possession of a controlled substance in violation of the Code, “the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was aware of the presence and character of the drug and that the accused consciously possessed it.” Yerling, 71 Va. App. at 532 (emphasis added) (citing Jones v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. 2001"To sustain a conviction for possession of a controlled substance in violation of Code § 18.2-250, the evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was aware of the presence and character of the controlled substance." Jones v. Commonwealth, - 12 - 17 Va. App. 572, 574 , 439 S.E.2d 863, 864 (1994). | 5 | 5 |
White v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2000"To support a conviction based on constructive possession, 'the Commonwealth must point to evidence of acts, statements, - 3 - or conduct of the accused or other facts or circumstances which tend to show that the defendant was aware of both the presence and character of the substance and that it was subject to his dominion and control.'" White v. Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 446, 452 , 482 S.E.2d 876, 879 (1997) (citations omitted). 2000"To support a conviction based on constructive possession, 'the Commonwealth must point to evidence of acts, statements, - 3 - or conduct of the accused or other facts or circumstances which tend to show that the defendant was aware of both the presence and character of the substance and that it was subject to his dominion and control.'" White v. Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 446, 452 , 482 S.E.2d 876, 879 (1997) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Drew v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2000When the Commonwealth seeks to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused constructively possessed a controlled substance, "the Commonwealth must point to evidence of acts, statements, or conduct of the accused or other facts or - 4 - circumstances which tend to show that the [accused] was aware of both the presence and character of the substance and that it was subject to his dominion and control." Drew v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 471, 473 , 338 S.E.2d 844, 845 (1986) (citation omitted). 2000When the Commonwealth seeks to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused constructively possessed a controlled substance, "the Commonwealth must point to evidence of acts, statements, or conduct of the accused or other facts or - 4 - circumstances which tend to show that the [accused] was aware of both the presence and character of the substance and that it was subject to his dominion and control." Drew v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 471, 473 , 338 S.E.2d 844, 845 (1986) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Ritter v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1994Ritter v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 732, 741 , 173 S.E.2d 799, 805 (1970). 1994Ritter v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 732, 741 , 173 S.E.2d 799, 805 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scruggs v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2006Code § 18.2-250(A). -3- McCollum relies upon our holding in Scruggs v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 58 , 448 S.E.2d 663 (1994), in which we held the evidence insufficient to support a conviction for possession of drugs when the cocaine was found under a shirt located under the front passenger’s seat of a car that defendant was driving when there was a passenger in the front seat. 2006Code § 18.2-250(A). -3- McCollum relies upon our holding in Scruggs v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 58 , 448 S.E.2d 663 (1994), in which we held the evidence insufficient to support a conviction for possession of drugs when the cocaine was found under a shirt located under the front passenger’s seat of a car that defendant was driving when there was a passenger in the front seat. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2000The defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting statements he made to a police officer who had not informed him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.