53 Va. App. 266 - Wright v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
24 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · 26 Va. App. 1 - Archer v. Commonwealth · United States of America v. Javier Ceballos-Torres · Coleman v. Commonwealth · 14 Va. App. 836 - Branch 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. It shall be unlawful for any person unlawfully in possession of a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II of the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) of Title 54.1 to simultaneously with knowledge and intent possess any firearm.... B. It shall be unlawful for any person unlawfully in possession of a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II of the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) to simultaneously with knowledge and intent possess any firearm on or about his person.... C. It shall be unlawful for any person to possess, use, or attempt to use any pistol, shotgun, rifle, or other firearm or display such weapon in a threatening manner while committing or attempting to commit the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution, or the possession with the intent to manufacture, sell, or distribute a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or Schedule II of the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) of Title 54.1 or more than one pound of marijuana....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wright v. Com.“The trial court convicted Wright on both charges, sentenced Wright to five years for each charge, and suspended five years of the sentence. In Wright's appeal to the Court of Appeals, he argued, as relevant here, that a conviction under Code § 18.2-308.4(C) requires the Commonwealth to prove actual, simultaneous possession of both the drugs and the firearm. [1] The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, holding that constructive possession of either or both the drugs and the firearm was sufficient but that”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wright v. Com.“[a]lthough penal laws are to be construed strictly [against the Commonwealth], they ought not to be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious intent of the legislature.”
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.