Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 238 Va. 213 - Brown v. Commonwealth

Brown v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
July 2010
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 2010

13 state decisions

601989199020002010decided

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 Inge v. Commonwealth · Bishop v. Commonwealth · Cantrell v. Commonwealth · Nelms v. Nelms · Stover 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Intent ... is a requisite element in many crimes, but motive is not. Motive is merely a circumstance tending to prove the guilt of the alleged perpetrator, as its absence may tend to show his innocence. It is relevant and probative on the issue of identity of the criminal agent, but it is not an element of any crime. “Motive and intent are not synonymous. Motive is the inducing cause, while intent is the mental state with which the criminal act is committed____ The prosecution is never required to prove motive, although it may do so.” Motive has never been a requisite element of the crime of murder in Virginia or in any other jurisdiction of which we are aware.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In keeping with our decisions that motive (as distinguished from intent) is not an essential element of murder in a direct evidence case, we have never said, and we now expressly disavow, that motive is an essential element of murder in a circumstantial evidence case. What we have said, and now reaffirm, is that once motive is proved, the underlying evidence of motive must concur with the circumstantial evidence of other inculpatory circumstances -- time, place, means, and conduct — in identifying the accused as the criminal agent beyond a reasonable doubt, (emphasis mine).”
    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.