Thomas v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 14 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 2889-03-4. |
| Citation | 45 Va. App. 811,613 S.E.2d 870 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Raymond Brian THOMAS, Sr., Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee. |
Steven A. Merril (Laura P. Leibowitz; Whitestone, Brent, Young & Merril, P.C., on brief), Fairfax, for appellant.
Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General (Judith Williams Jadgmann, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Before: FITZPATRICK, C.J., and BENTON, ELDER, BUMGARDNER, FRANK, HUMPHREYS, CLEMENTS, FELTON, KELSEY, McCLANAHAN and HALEY, JJ.
By published opinion dated January 25, 2005, a panel of this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. We stayed the mandate of that decision and granted rehearing en banc. Upon reconsideration, the stay of this Court's January 25, 2005 mandate is lifted and we affirm the trial court for the reasons stated in the majority opinion in Thomas v. Commonwealth, 44 Va.App. 741, 607 S.E.2d 738 (2005), and adopt that opinion as our own.
Judges Benton, Elder, and Clements would reverse the trial court for the reasons set forth in the panel dissenting opinion. Chief Judge Fitzpatrick agrees with the dissent that the trial court erred in allowing the disputed evidence. However, she would hold that the other evidence of guilt is overwhelming and, thus, the error could not have affected the verdict.
This order shall be published and certified to the trial court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castillo v. Commonwealth
...F. Sheridan, & Edward J. Imwinkelried, Virginia Evidentiary Foundations § 6.4[A], at 165 (1998)), adopted upon reh’g en banc, 45 Va. App. 811, 613 S.E.2d 870 (2005). Applying the principles outlined above, we conclude that the protective order itself was admissible in both the first-degree ......
-
Perry v. Commonwealth of Va..
...“be both specific and timely.” Thomas v. Commonwealth, 44 Va.App. 741, 750, 607 S.E.2d 738, 742, adopted upon reh'g en banc, 45 Va.App. 811, 613 S.E.2d 870 (2005). Had appellant timely objected, the trial court would have had the opportunity “to intelligently consider [the] issue and, if ne......
-
Hicks v. Commonwealth
..."[n]ot just any objection will do." Thomas v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 741, 750, 607 S.E.2d 738, adopted upon reh’g en banc, 45 Va. App. 811, 613 S.E.2d 870 (2005). Instead, "[s]pecificity and timeliness undergird the contemporaneous-objection rule ... ‘so that the trial judge ... know[s] ......
-
Tizon v. Commonwealth
...” Thomas v. Commonwealth, 44 Va.App. 741, 751 n. 2, 607 S.E.2d 738, 742 n. 2 (citation omitted), adopted upon reh'g en banc, 45 Va.App. 811, 613 S.E.2d 870 (2005).6C. DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION MOTIONS When reviewing a denial of a suppression motion, we review the evidence “in the light most fav......