Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Conrad v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Virginia
Decided November 30, 1999No. 0321982PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
UPON A REHEARING EN BANC
FITZPATRICK, Chief Judge.
Christopher Scott Conrad (appellant) appealed the trial court’s conviction for involuntary manslaughter. Appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he acted in a criminally negligent manner. A panel of this Court agreed and reversed his conviction. See Conrad v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.App. 661, 514 S.E.2d 364 (1999). We granted the Commonwealth’s request for rehearing en banc, and upon rehearing, we affirm appellant’s conviction.
I
Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Martin v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1987
- Derr v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1991
- Griffin v. ShivelySupreme Court of Virginia · 1984
- Watkins v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1998
- Juares v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1997
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- State v. Al-NaseerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- Banks v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2003
- Ihar Sotnikau v. Loretta LynchCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2017
- Kelly v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2004
- Noakes v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2009
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.