Purvy v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that specific narrowing language in the indictment cannot be considered immaterial surplusage (citing Commonwealth v. Nuckles, 266 -4- Va. 519, 523 (2003))
• noting that a variance is not fatal if it “does not undermine the integrity of the trial”
• noting that “when the descriptive text of an indictment narrows the factual allegation, it limits the scope of the incorporation” of the contents of a statute by citation to the statute (emphasis in original)
• addressing the differing consequences of a true fatal variance argument and a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
• noting that “when the descriptive 3 Code § 18.2-308.4(C
• “A variance occurs when the criminal pleadings differ from the proof at trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).