Commonwealth v. Minor’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`permissible in cases where the motive ... of the accused is involved, or where the evidence is connected with or leads up to the offense for which the accused is on trial'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. McMillian · Rose v. Com.

2. ““In our view, evidence showing that a defendant raped one or more individuals other than the victim in the crime charged is generally not relevant to the question whether that victim did or did not consent to sexual intercourse with the defendant. This is so because ‘[t]he fact that one woman was raped ... has no tendency to prove that another woman did not consent.’ Lovely v. United States, 169 F.2d 386, 390 (4th Cir.1948).[ 2 ] As the court in Lovely explained, ‘evidence of other similar offenses is held admissible for the purpose of establishing intent in cases of assault with the intent to commit rape ..., and evidence of other offenses of like character is admissible in prosecutions for crime involving a depraved sexual instinct.’ 169 F.2d at 390 . However, the court observed that ‘the overwhelming weight of authority is that such evidence is not admissible in prosecution for rape’ for obvious reasons. Id. ‘Other attempts to ravish have a tendency to show that an assault under investigation was made with like intent. Acts showing a perverted sexual instinct are circumstances which with other circumstances may have a tendency to connect an accused with a crime of that character.’ Id. But, as already noted, the issue of consent concerns a victim’s state of mind and is unique with regard to each individual victim.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 45 Va. App. 375 - Gonzales v. Commonwealth · Hurst v. State

3. “It is well established in our jurisprudence that evidence of other offenses is generally not admissible to prove guilt of the crime for which a defendant is presently on trial. See Stockton v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 124, 142 , 314 S.E.2d 371, 383 (1984); Moore v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 72, 76 , 278 S.E.2d 822, 824 (1981); Eccles v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 20, 22 , 197 S.E.2d 332, 333 (1973). This is so because “[s]uch evidence implicating an accused in other crimes unrelated to the charged offense ... may confuse the issues being tried and cause undue prejudice to the defendant.” Guill v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 134, 138 , 495 S.E.2d 489, 491 (1998).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 44 Va. App. 741 - Thomas v. Commonwealth