23 Va. App. 454 - Hoverter v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Whether to provide a defendant expert assistance at state expense lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the burden is on the defendant to show that this discretion has been abused.... An indigent defendant’s constitutional right to the appointment of an expert at state expense is not absolute. Rather, ‘an indigent defendant who seeks appointment of an expert witness, at the Commonwealth’s expense, must demonstrate that the subject which necessitates the assistance of the expert is “likely to be a significant factor in his defense,” and that he will be prejudiced by the lack of expert assistance.’ Husske v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 203, 211 , 476 S.E.2d 920, 925 (1996) (quoting Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 82-83 , 105 S.Ct. 1087, 1096 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985)'). Hoverter was required to show a particularized need for the requested services and that he would be prejudiced by the lack of expert assistance_ He failed to do so. “Hoverter alleged no existing mental illness. He demonstrated no way that the services of an expert might constitute a significant factor in his defense. He showed no prejudice resulting from the non-appointment of an expert, nor did he explain why the detailed presentence investigation would not sufficiently reflect any ‘mitigation evidence.’ “At most, we surmise, Hoverter hoped that a psychological examination would support a decision for leniency at the sentencing hearing. However, a mere hope or suspicion that favorable evidence may resu”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sisson

2. “The plea of guilty to a serious criminal charge should be freely and voluntarily made, and entered by the accused, without a semblance of coercion and without fear or duress of any kind, and the accused should be permitted to withdraw a plea of guilty entered unadvisedly when application therefor is duly made in good faith and sustained by proofs, and a proper offer is made to go to trial on a plea of not guilty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 29 Va. App. 503 - Jones v. Commonwealth

3. “No fixed or definite rule applicable to and determinative of all cases can be laid down. However, the motion should not be denied, if timely made, and if it appears from the surrounding circumstances that the plea of guilty was submitted in good faith under an honest mistake of material fact or facts, or if it was induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence and would not otherwise have been made.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 30 Va. App. 74 - Hall v. Commonwealth