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.
6 Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fields v. Stategreen2 sentences1994In Kennedy , the Supreme Court made it clear that the exclusive focus should not be on the fact of prosecutorial error or on the impact of such error upon a defendant, but only on the intent of the prosecutor in committing the error. [1] Fields v. State, 96 Md.App. 722, 742 , 626 A.2d 1037, 1047 (1993). 1994In Kennedy, the Supreme Court made it clear that the exclusive focus should not be on the fact of prosecutorial error or on the impact of such error upon a defendant, but only on the intent of the prosecutor in committing the error. 1 Fields v. State, 96 Md. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2022“In Kennedy, the Supreme Court made it clear that the exclusive focus should not be on the fact of prosecutorial error or on the impact of such error upon a defendant, but only on the intent of the prosecutor in committing the error.” Robinson v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 551, 553 , aff’d en banc, 18 Va. App. 814 (1994). 1997“In Kennedy , the Supreme Court made it clear that the exclusive focus should not be on the fact of prosecutorial error or on the impact of such error upon the defendant, but only on the intent of the prosecutor in committing the error.” Robinson, 17 Va.App. at 553 , 439 S.E.2d at 624 . | 4 | 1996–2022 |
Oregon v. Kennedy
green
2 sentences1997Thus, as the trial court determined, the dispositive issue here is not whether Mr. Smith’s “possible violation of a disciplinary rule bars the defendant’s retrial, but whether or not the actions of Mr. Smith, which may have ethical implications, were done by him with the intent to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial.” In proving “that the second prosecution is barred by double jeopardy, [the defendant] must produce sufficient evidence to allow the court to infer ‘the existence or nonexistence of intent from objective facts and circumstances.’ ” Robinson, 17 Va.App. at 553 , 439 S. 1997Thus, as the trial court determined, the dispositive issue here is not whether Mr. Smith’s “possible violation of a disciplinary rule bars the defendant’s retrial, but whether or not the actions of Mr. Smith, which may have ethical implications, were done by him with the intent to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial.” In proving “that the second prosecution is barred by double jeopardy, [the defendant] must produce sufficient evidence to allow the court to infer ‘the existence or nonexistence of intent from objective facts and circumstances.’ ” Robinson, 17 Va.App. at 553 , 439 S. | 4 | 1994–1997 |
Robinson v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2022“In Kennedy, the Supreme Court made it clear that the exclusive focus should not be on the fact of prosecutorial error or on the impact of such error upon a defendant, but only on the intent of the prosecutor in committing the error.” Robinson v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 551, 553 , aff’d en banc, 18 Va. App. 814 (1994). | 1 | 2022–2022 |