Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

213 Va. 52

Boyd v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided June 12, 1972

Supreme Court of Virginia · decided 1972-06-12

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(1) to prove motive to commit the crime charged; (2) to establish guilty knowledge or to negate good faith; (3) to negate the possibility of mistake or accident; (4) to show the conduct and feeling of the accused toward his victim, or to establish their prior relations; (5) to prove opportunity; (6) to prove identity of the accused as the one who committed the crime where the prior criminal acts are so distinctive as to indicate a modus operandi; or (7) to demonstrate a common scheme or plan where the other crime or crimes constitute a part of a general scheme of which the crime charged is a part.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Lockhart v. Com., Lockhart v. Commonwealth

““Generally, evidence of prior criminal conduct is not admissible except under well defined circumstances. Kirkpatrick v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 269 , 176 S. E. 2d 802 (1970). The prior sales of heroin were unrelated to the October 26 sale. Hence, the evidence concerning the prior sales does not fall within an exception to the general rule. Its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. Therefore, we hold that the evidence of prior sales was not admissible.” 213 Va. at 53 , 189 S. E. 2d at 359-60 .”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Eccles v. Commonwealth, Wilson v. Com.

Relies on Kirkpatrick v. Commonwealth

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1972-06-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently June 2006 · most notably 1 Va. App. 241 - Sutphin v. Commonwealth (1985), 44 Va. App. 741 - Thomas v. Commonwealth (2005)

62 state decisions

3701972198019902000decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 Anthony Boyd was indicted for possession and distribution of heroin. The offense occurred on October 26, 1970. A jury found Boyd guilty as charged in the indictment and fixed his punishment at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of 15 years. Judgment was entered in accordance with the jury’s verdict. We granted Boyd a writ of error.

¶2 The issue before us is whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of two prior sales of heroin.

¶3 Officer M. W. Branscome of the Richmond City Police Department testified that Boyd sold him two capsules containing heroin on October 26, 1970. Over defendant’s objection, Branscome was permitted to testify that he witnessed two previous sales of heroin by Boyd. These sales took place a few days before October 26, 1970.

¶4 The trial court instructed the jury that the evidence of the commission of prior offenses may not be considered as evidence of guilt *53 of the offense charged, but “may be considered by the jury as bearing on the issue of whether the prior offenses constituted part of a general scheme, of which the crime charged is a part.”

¶5 Generally, evidence of prior criminal conduct is not admissible except under well defined circumstances. Kirkpatrick v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 269, 176 S.E.2d 802 (1970). The prior sales of heroin were unrelated to the October 26 sale. Hence, the evidence concerning the prior sales does not fall within an exception to the general rule. Its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. Therefore, we hold that the evidence of prior sales was not admissible.

¶6 Reversed and remanded.

/213/va/52 · .json · Public domain