20 Va. App. 49 - Johnson v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
February 2008
most recently cited
25 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Illinois v. Gates · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Cheng v. Commonwealth · United States v. Crittendon
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To prove the charge of possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony, the Commonwealth was required to prove that Johnson was a convicted felon. Thus with respect to that charge, the trial court was obliged to receive evidence of Johnson’s prior criminal record. However, that evidence bore no relevance and had no probative value with respect to the charges relating to possession of cocaine. With respect to those charges, it served merely the purpose of prejudicing Johnson in the eyes of the jury, by suggesting to their minds that he had a criminal propensity.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Long was charged with possession of heroin, possession of a firearm while in possession of heroin, and possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. Again, the circumstances of his trial on the first two charges were such that his prior felony conviction had no relevance or probative value. Holding that justice required severance of the third charge, we said: Evidence of Long’s prior felony conviction would not have been admissible in a trial on the possession of heroin and firearm/heroin possession charges, unless Long put his character or credibility in issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The court may direct that an accused be tried at one time for all offenses then pending against him, if justice does not require separate trials and (i) the offenses meet the require ments of Rule 3A:6(b) or (ii) the accused and the Commonwealth’s attorney consent thereto.”
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.