Mealy v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The objection urged to this instruction is twofold. It is said, in the first place, that the possession of the gun by the defendant was not such ‘previous possession’ as was legally requisite in order to make the instruction applicable. To sustain this contention we would have to overrule a long line of Virginia decisions, too numerous and familiar to require citation here. “The rule applied in this instruction has its foundation in the principle of criminal law that every person is presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his voluntary acts. The test of the criminal intent in the use of a deadly weapon is to be found, not in the manner in which or the purpose for which the previous possession of the weapon was acquired, but in its deliberate use for a deadly purpose. For example, in Honesty's Case, 81 Va. 283, 295-6 , the accused struck the fatal blow with a brickbat which he had but a moment before picked up, and in Jones' Case, 100 Va. 842, 855 , 41 S. E. 951 , the prisoner killed his victim with a post hole digger which he had in his hand before and at the time the altercation began, and with which he was peacefully prosecuting the work of building a fence. In both of these cases it was contended, with respect to an instruction exactly like the one here complained of, that the ‘previous possession’ necessary to justify such an instruction must be understood as a possession originating in previous preparation for the crime; but in both eases this”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McMurray v. Commonwealth

2. ““The court instructs the jury that a mortal wound given with a deadly weapon in the previous possession of the slayer without any provocation, or even with slight provocation, is prima facie wilful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, and throws upon the prisoners the necessity of showing extenuating circumstances. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McMurray v. Commonwealth

3. “evidence [that the decedent was a quarrelsome, dangerous and ferocious man] was not admissible. . . because there was no foundation in the case for the theory of self-defense, and the dangerous character of the deceased was, therefore, not material.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Com. v. Cary