40 Va. App. 104 - Askew v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Among the circumstances that tend to prove an intent to distribute are “the quantity of the drugs seized, the manner in which they are packaged, and the presence of ... equipment related to drug distribution.” McCain v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 483, 493 , 545 S.E.2d 541, 547 (2001) (citations omitted). Pagers and firearms are among the equipment that has been recognized as tools of the drug trade, the possession of which are probative of intent to distribute. Glasco v. Commonwealth, 26 Va.App. 763, 775 , 497 S.E.2d 150, 156 (1998), aff'd, 257 Va. 433 , 513 S.E.2d 137 (1999). Furthermore, “the absence of paraphernalia suggestive of personal use ... [is] regularly recognized as [a] factor[ ] indicating an intent to distribute.” Welshman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 20, 37 , 502 S.E.2d 122, 130 (1998) (en banc) (citation omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 Va. App. 166 - Scott v. Commonwealth · 57 Va. App. 658 - Holloway v. Commonwealth

2. “"[E]xpert testimony, usually that of a police officer,” is one factor or circumstance which the fact finder may consider in determining whether drugs were possessed with intent to distribute. Because the facts and circumstances in each drug-related case vary, no uniform standard exists to differentiate an amount that is always for personal use or for distribution. While many states have chosen to differentiate between the severity or degree of the offense based upon the amount in one’s possession, Virginia recognizes that a drug dealer may not always possess a large amount of illegal contraband. Thus, proof of whether one possesses drugs for personal use or distribution depends on the facts of each case. The creation of an evidentiary presumption based on possession of a specific amount is left to the legislature.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 56 Va. App. 667 - Holloway v. Commonwealth

3. “Servis v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 507, 524 , 371 S.E.2d 156, 165 (1988).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 57 Va. App. 658 - Holloway v. Commonwealth