Morris v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The photograph in question here illustrates that at some point before his arrest, [Morris] had become associated with Bensusan. At trial, the jury heard evidence that in executing the search warrant at Bensusan's home, the police were looking for cocaine. Thus, the photograph, when considered in conjunction with the other evidence in the case, was relevant to show that [Morris] possessed the intent to distribute the cocaine which was packaged for sale and thrown from his car. The drugs were discarded as he was approaching the isolated home of Bensusan, a person with whom [Morris] was familiar and whom the police had reason to suspect was involved with drugs. Because the photograph bears a logical connection with the guilt of [Morris] on the issue of intent, it was properly admitted as relevant and material to the charge against him.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 14 Va. App. 283 - Morris v. Commonwealth

2. “[COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY]: * * * * We know that [the passenger] and Quinton Morris had been there before, because there were photographs in the house of Quinton Morris standing in front of the very same car with Mr. Bensusan and his child. Here is a photograph of Quinton Morris and [the passenger] standing in the same—there is Mr. Bensusan's son in the photograph, there's the car, and you look at their hands. Of course, it's hard to tell in the Polaroid photograph, some distance away, but look and see if it doesn't look like a white substance like white cocaine in their hands. It's right there. And the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 14 Va. App. 283 - Morris v. Commonwealth

3. “The photographs introduced in evidence have no causal relation or logical and natural connection with the guilt of the defendant and are irrelevant and immaterial to the charge against him.... We cannot say ... that it was harmless error to admit them in evidence. The jury could have given the same weight to the photographs as assigned by the Commonwealth for their admissibility. Hence their admission was prejudicial and prevented the accused from having that character of an impartial trial to which one is entitled....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 14 Va. App. 283 - Morris v. Commonwealth