Llamera v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding expert violated ultimate issue rule where he testified that quantity of cocaine possessed by defendant “would suggest” the defendant “was a person who sold cocaine”
• noting that an expert may “express h[er] opinion relative to the existence or nonexistence of facts not within common knowledge” (quoting Webb v. Commonwealth, 204 Va. 24, 33 (1963))
• holding in prosecution for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute that the Commonwealth was required to prove both the element of possession and the intent to distribute, which were both ultimate issues of fact
• whether quantity of cocaine would suggest an intent to distribute was an ultimate issue of fact
• whether quantity of cocaine would suggest an intent to distribute was an ultimate issue of fact
• whether quantity of cocaine would suggest an intent to distribute was an ultimate issue of fact

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).