Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 443 S.E.2d 160 (Va. 1994). · Go Syfert
Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 443 S.E.2d 160 (Va. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: James A. Farrow v. Commonwealth (vactapp, 2005-06-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
cited Cited "see" James A. Farrow v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 140, 146 , 435 S.E.2d 591, 594-95 (1993), aff’d, 247 Va. 339 , 443 S.E.2d 160 (1994).
cited Cited "see" Timothy Oberry Stith v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 140, 144 , 435 S.E.2d 591, 593 (1993) (“He agreed to talk with them.”), aff’d per curiam, 247 Va. 339 , 443 S.E.2d 160 (1994).
discussed Cited "see" McNair v. Commonwealth (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 17 Va.App. 140, 146 , 435 S.E.2d 591, 594-95 (1993), aff'd, 247 Va. 339 , 443 S.E.2d 160 (1994); see also Grinton, 14 Va.App. at 851 , 419 S.E.2d at 863 (“[t]he scope of a search may be further defined during the course of the search by the passive acquiescence of the person whose property is being searched”).
cited Cited "see" Commonwealth of Virginia v. Tomika D. White
Va. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 140, 146 , - 6 - 435 S.E.2d 591, 594 (1993), aff'd, 247 Va. 339 , 443 S.E.2d 160 (1994).
discussed Cited "see" McNair v. Commonwealth (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 17 Va.App. 140, 146 , 435 S.E.2d 591, 594-95 (1993), aff'd, 247 Va. 339 , 443 S.E.2d 160 (1994); see also Grinton, 14 Va.App. at 851 , 419 S.E.2d at 863 (“[t]he scope of a search may be further defined during the course of the search by the passive acquiescence of the person whose property is being searched”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lashant Leonardo White v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
“When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, an appellate court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and will accord the Commonwealth the benefit of all reasonable inferences fairly deducible from that evidence.” Branham v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 273 , 279, 720 S.E.2d 74 , 77 (2012); see, e.g., Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 17 Va.App. 140, 143 , 435 S.E.2d 591, 593 (1993) (stating that an appellate court reviewing a ruling denying a motion to suppress considers the evidence presented both at the suppression hearing and at trial), aff'd, 247 Va. 33…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Royal v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 17 Va.App. 140, 145 , 435 S.E.2d 591, 594 (1993), aff'd, 247 Va. 339, 443 S.E.2d 160 (1994).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McGee v. Commonwealth
Va. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 17 Va.App. 140 , 435 S.E.2d 591 (1993), aff'd, 247 Va. 339 , 443 S.E.2d 160 (1994) (holding that suspect was not “seized” when told by police to remove his hands from his pockets).
Albert Justin Lawrence
v.
Commonwealth of Virginia
Record No. 931539.
Supreme Court of Virginia.
Apr 15, 1994.
443 S.E.2d 160
Elizabeth Dashiell Scher (Morchower, Luxton and Whaley, on brief), for appellant., Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

In this case, we awarded appellant an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeals holding that the trial court did not err in ruling (1) that the appellant consented to a search of his person for the purpose of determining whether he possessed any illegal narcotics, and (2) that he did not withdraw that consent during the course of the search. Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 140, 435 S.E.2d 591 (1993).[*340] We have considered the questions, and for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, we will affirm the judgment below.

Affirmed.