6 Va. App. 485 - Darnell v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
153 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 153 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Commonwealth v. Catalina (1990), 14 Va. App. 988 - Campbell v. Commonwealth (1992)
153 state decisions
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 Burks v. United States · Swisher v. Swisher & Craun · King v. Commonwealth · Dowdy v. Commonwealth · Beck 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 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A reviewing court's responsibility in reviewing jury instructions is `to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.'”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is elementary that the burden is on the Commonwealth to prove every essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Unless those elements are defined by instructions available to the members of the jury during their deliberation, they cannot properly determine whether the Commonwealth has carried its burden. The duty to give such instructions is not discharged by simple reference to the indictment or by reading the applicable statute to the jury. “It is always the duty of the court at the proper time to instruct the jury on all principles of law applicable to the pleadings and the evidence (emphasis added)” and “a correct statement of the law applicable to the case, when the law is stated, ... [is one of the] essentials of a fair trial.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“The defendant is charged with the crime of aggravated involuntary manslaughter. The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of that crime: 1. That the defendant was driving a motor vehicle; and 2. That at the time he was under the influence of alcohol; and 3. That as a result of driving under the influence the defendant unintentionally caused the death of Wayne Holmes; and 4. That the defendant’s conduct was so gross, wanton and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life. If you find from the evidence that the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the above elements of the offense as charged, then you shall find the defendant guilty, but you shall not fix the punishment until your verdict has been returned and further evidence is heard by you. If you find from the evidence that the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the first three elements of the offense as charged but you do not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s conduct was so gross, wanton and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life then you shall find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter, but you shall not fix the punishment until your verdict has been returned and further evidence is heard by you. If you find that the Commonwealth has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the above offenses, then you shall find the defendant not guilty.”
2 later decisions 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.