14 Va. App. 130 - Boone v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 46 Va. App. 234 - Stevens v. Commonwealth (2005), 23 Va. App. 270 - Turner v. Commonwealth (1996)
48 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Buchanan v. Commonwealth · Barrett v. Commonwealth · Kentucky v. Walls · 13 Va. App. 524 - Martin v. Commonwealth · McClung v. Commonwealth
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[t]he appropriate standard of review requires that we view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to [the proponent of the instruction].'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“'If any credible evidence in the record supports a proffered instruction on a lesser included offense, failure to give the instruction is reversible error.' 'Such an instruction, however, must be supported by more than a mere scintilla of evidence.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The jury was instructed that the Commonwealth had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant wounded [the victim] with the “intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill” him. They were not instructed, however, that defendant could be convicted of a lesser offense in the absence of this intent. The jury was thus “given the impermissible choice of drawing the conclusion” either that defendant intended to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill [the victim], with or without malice, and was thus guilty of either malicious or unlawful wounding, or that he did not possess this intent “and was not guilty of any offense.” [Accordingly,] [t]he jury was denied the opportunity to assess the evidence as it related to assault and battery, an offense that may be accompanied by malice, but does not require the intent to maim, disfigure or kill.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.