Fincher v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Fincher v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 552 , 186 S.E.2d 75 (1972), the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the offenses for trial and said: “From the standpoint of economy of the time of the court, jurors, and witnesses, there was good reason for consolidation. The offenses charged against the defendant arose out of a series of related and connected events. Much the same evidence would have been submitted to the jury in separate trials. The Commonwealth, if consolidation had not been ordered, would have been required twice to secure the presence of a material out-of-state witness. “On the other hand, the defendant has not shown that the consolidation confounded him in his defense or adversely affected his substantive rights. Nor has he shown that trial of the consolidated indictments confused the jury.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 11 Va. App. 380 - Ferrell v. Commonwealth · Commonwealth v. Jimenez-Ventura

2. “[W]e see no reason the rule in this type case should differ from the rule applicable where a defendant is charged with separate felonies in several counts of the same indictment. Whether such counts should be tried separately or together is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court. Hence, we adopt the rule of discretion for determining questions of consolidation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 6 Va. App. 118 - Godwin v. Commonwealth