Rhodes v. Commonwealth

3 Citing cases

  1. Werres v. Commonwealth

    19 Va. App. 744 (Va. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 9 times

    He appeals the conviction for possessing an imitation controlled substance. Werres contends that: (1) the trial court erred in ruling that the 1992 amendment to Code Sec. 18.2-247(B) changed the elements of the offense so as no longer to require proof that the imitation substance is a substance that is subject to abuse as set forth in Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 473, 475, 404 S.E.2d 522, 523 (1991), and (2) the evidence is insufficient to prove that he intended to distribute the imitation controlled substance. We find that the 1992 amendment to Code Sec. 18.2-247(B) changed the elements of the offense to eliminate the requirement that the imitation substance is subject to abuse and that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.

  2. Powell v. Commonwealth

    289 Va. 20 (Va. 2015)   Cited 8 times
    Holding the evidence was sufficient for the factfinder to find that the substance would likely be mistaken for crack cocaine based on the detective's testimony that the substance looked like crack cocaine to the "naked eye"

    Powell relies on the Court of Appeals' decision in Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 473, 475, 404 S.E.2d 522, 523 (1991), to support his argument that the phrase “subject to abuse” should be given its plain, dictionary meaning. Powell is correct that in Rhodes, the Court of Appeals looked to Webster's Dictionary to determine the meaning of the phrase “subject to abuse,” and held that the phrase meant “ha[ving] a disposition or tendency to be misused or is liable to being misused.” Id.

  3. Powell v. Commonwealth

    62 Va. App. 579 (Va. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    Id. at 748, 454 S.E.2d at 38. In Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 473, 404 S.E.2d 522 (1991), this Court defined “subject to abuse” under Code § 18.2–247. “ ‘Subject to’ means ‘having a disposition or tendency; liable (to).’