Skip to main content

Wright v. Commonwealth

Citations

  • 348 S.E.2d 9
  • 2 Va. App. 743
  • 3 Va. Law Rep. 326
  • 1986 Va. App. LEXIS 326

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that “the one month time lapse between when the items were discovered missing and when they were found in [the defendant’s possession] is sufficiently brief to be construed as recent possession”
  • holding that stolen goods found in the possession of a defendant one month after the goods were discovered missing was “sufficiently brief to be construed as recent possession” under the petit larceny statute
  • holding Miranda warnings unnecessary where information obtained as a result of conduct normally attendant to arrest and custody and noting \the total absence of any evidence that the questioning . . . was intended or designed to produce an incriminating response.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Keenan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.