green
Positive treatment
Contested · 18% via dissents
13.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joshua Ryan Bevels v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Similarly, in Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 360 (1972), a brief per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court held that evidence of two prior sales of heroin was unrelated to the sale for which the defendant was standing trial and therefore inadmissible under an exception to the general rule prohibiting the admission of other crimes evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas v. Commonwealth
(2×)
See Donahue v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 145, 154-56 , 300 S.E.2d 768, 773-74 (1983); Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 21-22 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 332-33 (1973); Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 52-53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 359-60 (1972); Hill v. Commonwealth, 17 Va.App. 480, 485-87 , 438 S.E.2d 296, 299-300 (1993); Wilson, 16 Va.App. at 219-23 , 429 S.E.2d at 233-35 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John D. Creekmore v. Commonwealth
Thus, in cases involving distribution of narcotics, the Supreme Court has barred evidence of a defendant’s prior distribution of narcotics because: (i) it is not “probative of . . . intent to distribute drugs” on a later occasion, Donahue v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 145, 154 , 300 S.E.2d 768, 773 (1983); (ii) it cannot be considered to be “evidence showing a knowledge of ‘this particular transaction . . . or what the expedition was about,’” Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 22 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 333 (1973) (per curiam); and (iii) it is inadmissible as proof of a pattern or “gener…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cooper v. Commonwealth
(2×)
See Donahue v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 145, 154-56 , 300 S.E.2d 768, 773-74 (1983); Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 21-22 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 332-33 (1973); Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 52-53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 359-60 (1972); Hill, 17 Va.App. at 485-87 , 438 S.E.2d at 299-300 ; Wilson v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 213, 219-23 , 429 S.E.2d 229, 233-35 , aff'd on reh’g en banc, 17 Va.App. 248 , 436 S.E.2d 193 (1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cooper v. Commonwealth
See Donahue v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 145, 154-56 , 300 S.E.2d 768, 773-74 (1983); Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 21-22 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 332-33 (1973); Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 52-53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 359-60 (1972); Hill v. Commonwealth, 17 Va.App. 480, 485-87 , 438 S.E.2d 296, 299-300 (1993); Wilson v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 213, 219-23 , 429 S.E.2d 229, 233-35 , aff'd on reh’g en banc, 17 Va.App. 248 , 436 S.E.2d 193 (1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lockhart v. Com.
See generally Donahue v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 145, 156 , 300 S.E.2d 768, 774 (1983); Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 22 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 333 (1973) ( per curiam ); Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 359-60 (1972) ( per curiam ) (holding that evidence of prior unrelated drug sales is inadmissible to prove knowledge of the presence or nature of drugs or the intent to possess or distribute them).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Commonwealth
See Donahue v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 145, 155 , 300 S.E.2d 768, 773 (1983); Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 22 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 333 (1973); Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 359 (1972).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilkins v. Commonwealth
(2×)
NOTES [1] We consider this appeal en banc pursuant to Code § 17-116.02(D) because a majority of the Court determined it appropriate. [2] The intimate connection between defendant's prior misconduct and the subject offense, with its related evidentiary value, clearly distinguishes this case from Donahue v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 145, 149 , 300 S.E.2d 768, 770 (1983) (prior distribution of drugs by the accused to unidentified persons "in an automobile" over a month before the offense then before the court), Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 22 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 333 (1973) (prior consumption of…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodriguez v. Commonwealth
(4×)
See Donahue v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 145, 154 , 300 S.E.2d 768, 772-73 (1983); Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 22 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 333 (1973); Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 359-60 (1972).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lockhart v. Commonwealth
See generally Donahue v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 145, 156 , 300 S.E.2d 768, 774 (1983); Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 22 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 333 (1973) (per curiam); Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 359-60 (1972) (per curiam) (holding that evidence of prior unrelated drug sales is inadmissible to prove knowledge of the presence or nature of drugs or the intent to possess or distribute them).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Simpson v. Commonwealth
Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 359-60 (1972).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lewis v. Commonwealth
(2×)
See Donahue v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 145, 156 , 300 S.E.2d 768 -74 (1983); Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 22-23 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 333 (1973); Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 360 (1972); Fleenor v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 270, 275-76 , 105 S.E.2d 160, 164 (1958).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lewis v. Commonwealth
(2×)
See Donahue v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 145, 156 , 300 S.E.2d 768, 774 (1983); Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 22-23 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 333 (1973); Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 360 (1972); Fleenor v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 270, 275-76 , 105 S.E.2d 160, 164 (1958).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Henderson v. Commonwealth
See also Bourgeois v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 268, 273 , 227 S.E.2d 714, 718 (1976); Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 359 (1972); Walker v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. (1 Leigh) 630 -33 (1829).
examined
Cited "see"
Kyna Chanelle McGowan, s/k/a Kyna Chanele McGowan v. Commonwealth
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 359-60 (1972) (per curiam); Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 22 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 333 (1973) (per curiam); Donahue v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 145, 156 , 300 S.E.2d 768, 774 (1983).
examined
Cited "see"
Scott v. Commonwealth
(4×)
See Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 360 (1972) (reversing a conviction because the three heroin sales were not part of a general scheme); Spence, 12 Va.App. at 1044 , 407 S.E.2d at 918 (holding that no evidence of the four drug sale charges tied the sales together); see also Scates, 262 Va. at 760-62 , 553 S.E.2d at 758-59 (reversing the conviction because the defendant’s admission that he “jammed” credit cards into doors in order to enter other homes was not admissible as demonstrative of a common “scheme of breaking into homes”).
examined
Cited "see"
McGowan v. Commonwealth
(8×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 359-60 (1972) (per curiam); Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 22 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 333 (1973) (per curiam); Donahue v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 145, 156 , 300 S.E.2d 768, 774 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gerald Lee Payne v. Commonwealth of Virginia
(2×)
See Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 359-60 (1972) (per curiam); Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 22 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 333 (1973) (per curiam); Donahue v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 145, 154-55 , 300 S.E.2d 768, 773-74 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilson v. Com.
(2×)
See Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 359-60 (1972) (per curiam); Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 22 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 333 (1973) (per curiam); Donahue v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 145, 156 , 300 S.E.2d 768, 774 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilson v. Commonwealth
(2×)
See Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 359-60 (1972) (per curiam); Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 22 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 333 (1973) (per curiam); Donahue v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 145, 156 , 300 S.E.2d 768, 774 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Satterfield v. Commonwealth
(2×)
These exceptions are qualified by the test of whether “the legitimate probative value outweighs the incidental prejudice to the accused.” Hawks v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 244, 247 , 321 S.E.2d 650, 652 (1984)(quoting Lewis v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 497, 502, 303 S.E.2d 890, 893 (1983)); accord Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 360 (1972); Barber, 5 Va. App. at 180 , 360 S.E.2d at 892 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Rider v. Commonwealth
(2×)
See Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52 , 189 S.E.2d 359 (1972) (evidence of two prior sales of heroin was unrelated to the sale for which the defendant was standing trial and therefore inadmissible).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Guill v. Commonwealth
(4×)
Id. at 156 , 300 S.E.2d at 774 ; see also Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 53 , 189 S.E.2d 359, 360 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Spence v. Commonwealth
(2×)
See, e.g., Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52 , 189 S.E.2d 359 (1972); Johnson v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 444 , 350 S.E.2d 673 (1986); Henderson v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 125 , 360 S.E.2d 876 (1987); Godwin v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 118 , 367 S.E.2d 520 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sutphin v. Commonwealth
(2×)
See also Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52 , 189 S.E.2d 359 (1972).
Anthony Boyd
v.
Commonwealth of Virginia
v.
Commonwealth of Virginia
Record 7894.
Supreme Court of Virginia.
Jun 12, 1972.
Michael Morchoiver, for plaintiff in error., Burnett Miller, III, Assistant Attorney General (Andrew P. Miller, Attorney General, on brief), for defendant in error.
Snead, I'Anson, Carrico, Harrison, Cochran, Harman.
Cited by 57 opinions | Published
Anthony Boyd was indicted for possession and distribution of heroin. The offense occurred on October 26, 1970. A jury found Boyd guilty as charged in the indictment and fixed his punishment at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of 15 years. Judgment was entered in accordance with the jury’s verdict. We granted Boyd a writ of error.
The issue before us is whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of two prior sales of heroin.
Officer M. W. Branscome of the Richmond City Police Department testified that Boyd sold him two capsules containing heroin on October 26, 1970. Over defendant’s objection, Branscome was permitted to testify that he witnessed two previous sales of heroin by Boyd. These sales took place a few days before October 26, 1970.
The trial court instructed the jury that the evidence of the commission of prior offenses may not be considered as evidence of guilt[*53] of the offense charged, but “may be considered by the jury as bearing on the issue of whether the prior offenses constituted part of a general scheme, of which the crime charged is a part.”
Generally, evidence of prior criminal conduct is not admissible except under well defined circumstances. Kirkpatrick v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 269, 176 S.E.2d 802 (1970). The prior sales of heroin were unrelated to the October 26 sale. Hence, the evidence concerning the prior sales does not fall within an exception to the general rule. Its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. Therefore, we hold that the evidence of prior sales was not admissible.
Reversed and remanded.