Saunders v. Com.
| Citation | 211 Va. 399, 177 S.E.2d 637 |
| Case Date | November 30, 1970 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
Page 637
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, (two cases).
Joseph P. Kilgore, Amherst, for plaintiff in error.
Anthony F. Troy, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.
Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, GORDON, HARRISON, COCHRAN and HARMAN, JJ.
CARRICO, Justice.
Upon his trial for burglary and grand larceny, Marvin Fortune Saunders, Jr., the
Page 638
defendant, was convicted by the jury, and his punishment was fixed at three years in the penitentiary on each charge. To the final order approving the verdicts and imposing the sentences, the defendant was granted writs of error.The sufficiency of the evidence to convict is not questioned on appeal, so a detailed narrative is not necessary. Suffice to say, it was shown that on January 13 or 14, 1969, the defendant and two accomplices traveled from their homes in Washington, D.C., to Wingina in Nelson County, Virginia. There they broke and entered [211 Va. 400] a building housing a store and post office and stole money and goods totaling $161.00 in value.
The defendant contends that his convictions should be reversed because the trial court erred in admitting evidence of and permitting reference to his involvement in criminal offenses other than the ones for which he was being tried. The incidents of which the defendant complains involved a car theft in Arlington County, 'a bank robbery' in the town of Scottsville, burglaries in the counties of Albemarle and Fluvanna, and the shooting out of a deputy sheriff's tire during a chase in Fluvanna County.
The defendant argues that 'as a general rule evidence showing the commission of other crimes is not admissible,' citing Rees v. Commonwealth, 203 Va. 850, 868, 127 S.E.2d 406, 418 (1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 964, 83 S.Ct. 1088, 10 L.Ed.2d 128 (1963). Conceding that there are exceptions to the general rule, he maintains that the evidence used against him did not come under any of those exceptions and, therefore, was admitted improperly.
The difficulty with the defendant's position is that the record he has brought us does not permit the determination that reversible error was committed in the court below. In some of the instances of which he complains, he either failed to make any objection, or he failed to state his grounds when he did object. In other instances, he himself injected into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Billips v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0172-05-3.
...court will not "notice error [that] has been invited by the party seeking to take advantage thereof on appeal." Saunders v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 399, 400, 177 S.E.2d 637, 638 (1970); see also Buchanan v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 389, 400-01, 384 S.E.2d 757, 764 (1989) (holding that a party ma......
-
Muhammad v. Com., Record No. 041050
...We will not "notice error which has been invited by the party seeking to take advantage thereof on appeal." Saunders v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 399, 400, 177 S.E.2d 637, 638 (1970); Clark v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 787, 791, 120 S.E.2d 270, 273 (1961). Muhammad's introduction of evidence showin......
-
Muhammad v. Com., Record No. 041050.
...We will not "notice error which has been invited by the party seeking to take advantage thereof on appeal." Saunders v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 399, 400, 177 S.E.2d 637, 638 (1970); Clark v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 787, 791, 120 S.E.2d 270, 273 (1961). Muhammad's introduction of evidence showin......
-
State v. Smith, 17190
...455 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), vacated in part on other grounds, 408 U.S. 939, 92 S.Ct. 2872, 33 L.Ed.2d 761 (1972); Saunders v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 399, 177 S.E.2d 637 (1970); 75 Am.Jur.2d Trials § 174 The waiver question is not without some qualification in the context of cross-examination. Cou......