6 Va. App. 65 - Reed v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably 25 Va. App. 215 - Redman v. Commonwealth (1997), 17 Va. App. 384 - Tart v. Commonwealth (1993)
36 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 Luce v. United States · 4 Va. App. 433 - Mounce v. Commonwealth · Ball v. Commonwealth · State v. Hoyt · 3 Va. App. 89 - Chrisman 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[A]n accused’s decision whether to testify ‘seldom turns on the resolution of one factor’ [and] a reviewing court cannot assume that the adverse ruling motivated a defendant’s decision not to testify. . . . Requiring ... a defendant to testify [to preserve the issue for appellate review] will enable the reviewing court to determine the impact any erroneous impeachment may have had in light of the record as a whole; it will also tend to discourage making such motions solely to ‘plant’ reversible error in the event of conviction.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“On its face, the criminal trespass statute appears strikingly similar to common law civil trespass. As a penal statute, however, the Virginia criminal trespass statute has been uniformly construed to require a willful trespass.... “Criminal intent is an essential element of the statutory offense of trespass, even though the statute is silent as to intent.... ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Because Reed did not testify, we cannot determine whether the prosecutor would have used the prior conviction, or whether the judge would have allowed Reed to explain his contention as to how it was improperly obtained. [Therefore,] “[a]ny possible harm flowing from [a trial court’s] ruling permitting impeachment by a prior conviction is wholly speculative.””
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.