55 Va. App. 82 - Baylor v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When considering a challenge that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient, we ‘presume the judgment of the trial court to be correct’ and reverse only if the trial court’s decision is ‘plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.’” Baylor v. Commonwealth, 55 Va.App. 82, 86, 683 S.E.2d 843, 845 (2009) (quoting Davis v. Commonwealth, 39 Va.App. 96, 99 , 570 S.E.2d 875, 876-77 (2002)). “We do not ‘substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact.’ ” Id. (quoting Wactor v. Commonwealth, 38 Va.App. 375, 380 , 564 S.E.2d 160, 162 (2002)). “Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 [ 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 ] (1979). “This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Id.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 60 Va. App. 111 - Wells v. Commonwealth · 60 Va. App. 161 - Beshah v. Commonwealth

2. “To be clear, we expressly do not hold that evidence of an item’s replacement cost may never be used to assist in establishing a stolen item’s value. It is axiomatic that some items appreciate in value with the passage of time just as other items depreciate. Moreover, it is certainly conceivable that stolen property may be of such a character or recent manufacture that replacement value accurately reflects actual or fair market value.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 59 Va. App. 725 - Little v. Commonwealth

3. “[W]here, as here, there is an absence of evidence linking replacement value to an accurate determination of actual or fair market value, mere evidence of replacement value alone is insufficient as a matter of law to support an inference by the fact finder that the value of stolen property necessarily exceeds the statutory threshold.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 62 Va. App. 470 - Levin Grimes v. Commonwealth of Virginia