15 Va. App. 507 - Smith 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. “[T]he quoted passage above shows that the statement was read into evidence, even if not admitted in written form. “The effect of that procedure on the jury was the same as if the statement had been formally introduced, and the court’s refusal to admit the statement in evidence is immaterial.” The record shows the trial court determined that the jury had heard the relevant portions of the statement as it related to impeachment. Once the jury has heard the relevant portions of the prior inconsistent statement during cross-examination, whether the written statement itself is admitted into evidence is “a distinction without a difference.” Because the trial court determined that admission of the written statement would have added nothing not already in the record, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit the transcript.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 22 Va. App. 53 - Waller v. Commonwealth

2. “A witness in a criminal case may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, ... but if it is intended to contradict such witness by the writing, his attention must, before such contradictory proof can be given, be called to the particular occasion on which the writing is supposed to have been made, and he may be asked if he did not make a writing of the purport of the one to be offered to contradict him, and if he denies making it, ... it shall then be shown to him, and if he admits its genuineness, he shall be allowed to make his own explanation of it____”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 30 Va. App. 58 - Currie v. Commonwealth

3. “It is fundamental to the right of cross-examination that a witness who is not a party to the case on trial may be impeached by prior statements made by the witness which are inconsistent with his present testimony, provided a foundation is first laid by calling his attention to the statement and then questioning him about it before it is introduced in evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 22 Va. App. 53 - Waller v. Commonwealth