Thomas v. Commonwealth, 613 S.E.2d 870 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Thomas v. Commonwealth, 613 S.E.2d 870 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
522 citation events (522 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ki-Ho v. Commonwalth of Virginia, No. 2594062 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2008)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
[The objection] must be both specific and timely—so that the trial judge would know the particular point being made in time to do something about it.no pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed
  • Ki-Ho v. Commonwalth of Virginia, No. 2594062 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2008).unpublished 2 cites
    ([The objection] must be both specific and timely—so that the trial judge would know the particular point being made in time to do something about it.)
  • Carl Ray Jackson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0459074 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2008).unpublished 2 cites
    ([The objection] must be both specific and timely—so that the trial judge would know the particular point being made in time to do something about it.)
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“the objection must be both specific and timely-so that the trial judge would know the particular point being made in time to do something about it.”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 2 citing cases listed
  • Ki-Ho v. Commonwalth of Virginia, No. 2594062 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2008).unpublished 2 cites
    “the objection must be both specific and timely-so that the trial judge would know the particular point being made in time to do something about it.”
  • Carl Ray Jackson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0459074 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2008).unpublished 2 cites
    “the objection must be both specific and timely-so that the trial judge would know the particular point being made in time to do something about it.”
“Only when reasonable jurists could not differ can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 2 citing cases listed
Other citing cases16 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Show 6 more citing cases
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Raymond Brian THOMAS, Sr., Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.
2889034.
Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Jun 14, 2005.
Published opinion
613 S.E.2d 870
✓ 44 Va. App. 471
2005 Va. App. LEXIS 235
Fitzpatrick, C.J., and Benton, Elder, Bumgardner, Frank, Humphreys, Clements, Felton, Kelsey, McClanahan and Haley.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: bottom 88%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Virginia (4) · Wyoming Supreme Court (1)

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.

Upon Rehearing En Banc

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[*871] 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.