Ngomondjami 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 that “[c]onsistent with prior decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court [of Virginia], it was not necessary that the jury find appellant ‘acted with the purpose of putting [a car] in motion’ to find he ‘operated’ a car within the meaning of Code § 18.2-266”
• holding that “[c]onsistent with prior decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court [of Virginia], it was not necessary that the jury find appellant ‘acted with the purpose of putting [a car] in motion’ to find he ‘operated’ a car within the meaning of Code § 18.2-266”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).