Wyche v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably O'Dell v. Commonwealth (1988), Barrett v. Commonwealth (1986)
28 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 Whittaker v. Commonwealth · Akers v. Commonwealth · People v. Brown · Hummel v. Commonwealth · Owens 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘When testimony is delivered but excluded upon objection, an appellate court has a record of the content and purport of the testimony upon which to determine the propriety of the trial court’s ruling; when testimony is rejected before it is delivered, an appellate court has no basis for adjudication unless the record reflects a proper proffer.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The fact that this trial was by the judge and not a jury, and that the evidence could not be proffered outside the presence of the trier of fact, is not sufficient explanation for defendant’s failure to proffer. In Akers v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 40, 45 , 216 S.E.2d 28, 31 (1975), we cited with approval People v. Brown, 24 N.Y.2d 168, 172 , 247 N.E.2d 153, 155 , 299 N.Y.S.2d 190, 193 (1969), where the New York court said that “ ‘a Judge — unlike a jury — by reason of his learning, experience and judicial discipline, is uniquely capable of distinguishing the issues and of making an objective determination. . . .’” We will not assume that the trial judge in the case under review could not or would not have disregarded any testimony that he considered improper. The requirement for proffer of testimony is to assure that the record will be complete.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] unilateral avowal of counsel, if unchallenged, or a mutual stipulation of the testimony expected constitutes a proper proffer, and that absent such acquiescence or stipulation, this Court will not consider an error assigned to the rejection of testimony unless such testimony has been given in the absence of the jury and made a part of the record in the manner prescribed by the Rules of Court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.