Pease v. Com.
| Decision Date | 31 October 2003 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 030081. |
| Citation | 266 Va. 397,588 S.E.2d 149 |
| Parties | Merry Christine PEASE v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Gerald L. Gray, Clintwood (Robert M. Galumbeck; Dudley, Galumbeck, Necessary and Dennis, Tazewell, on brief), for appellant.
John H. McLees, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen. (Jerry W. Kilgore, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.
Present: HASSELL, C.J., LACY, KEENAN, KOONTZ, and LEMONS, JJ., and CARRICO and STEPHENSON, Senior Justices.
We granted the petition for appeal in this case to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court did not err in (1) failing to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, (2) failing to disqualify the special prosecutor and to dismiss and quash the indictment, and (3) failing to set aside the jury verdict because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law.
We have considered the questions, and, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals reported in 39 Va.App. 342, 573 S.E.2d 272 (2002), we will affirm its judgment.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ERVIN v. Commonwealth Of Va.
...dissenting. As this Court stated in Pease v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 342, 355, 573 S.E.2d 272, 278 (2002) (en banc), affd, 266 Va. 397, 588 S.E.2d 149 (2003), when the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, "[w]e let the decision stand unless we conclude no rational [factfin......
-
Clanton v. Com.
...Commonwealth, 39 Va.App. 342, 360, 573 S.E.2d 272, 280 (2002) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), aff'd, 266 Va. 397, 588 S.E.2d 149 (2003) (per curiam order adopting reasoning of the Court of "Whether the hypothesis of innocence is reasonable is itself a `question of......
-
Williams v. Commonwealth
...(2002) (en banc) ("We let the decision stand unless we conclude no rational juror could havereached that decision."), aff'd, 266 Va. 397, 588 S.E.2d 149 (2003). "An appellate court does not 'ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable ......
-
Seaton v. Com.
...(2002) (en banc) ("We let the decision stand unless we conclude no rational juror could have reached that decision."), aff'd, 266 Va. 397, 588 S.E.2d 149 (2003) (per curiam opinion adopting reasoning of en banc Court of Appeals opinion). Under this standard, a reviewing court does not "ask ......