Lienau v. Commonwealth, 823 S.E.2d 43 (Va. Ct. App. 2019). · Go Syfert
Search
Lienau v. Commonwealth, 823 S.E.2d 43 (Va. Ct. App. 2019). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Jose Joan Martinez Marmolejo v. Commonwealth of Virginia (vactapp, 2025-08-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Jose Joan Martinez Marmolejo v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lienau v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 254, 274 (2018), aff’d upon rehearing en banc, 69 Va. App. 780 (2019). - 11 - wrong or without evidence to support it.’” Pijor v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 502, 512 (2017) (quoting Code § 8.01-680).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Avery D. Kirby, s/k/a Avery Demetrie Kirby v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
Instead, these were credibility issues that were for the jury to decide, not for the trial court to resolve.3 “The credibility of [appellant’s] story was for the jury to determine in the light of all the other evidence, and he was entitled to have his version of the evidence presented to them under a proper instruction or instructions.” Spear v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 599, 601 (1973) (holding that the trial court erred in not giving a justifiable homicide instruction when “[t]he refused instruction was predicated upon defendant’s evidence and was a correct statement of the law”); se…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rakim Jamal Jackson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
In Sands v. Commonwealth, the Supreme Court has also stated, “In the context of a self-defense plea, ‘imminent danger’ is defined as ‘an immediate, real threat to one’s safety . . . .” Sands, 262 Va. at 729 (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 399 (7th ed. 1999)); see also Lienau v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 254 (2018), aff’d on reh’g en banc, 69 Va. App. 780 (2019).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thomas Robert LIENAU
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia
Record No. 0685-17-4.
Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Feb 12, 2019.
823 S.E.2d 43
Peter D. Greenspun (Anastasia T. Kranias ; Greenspun Shapiro PC, on briefs), for appellant., Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, on briefs), for appellee.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

Before Chief Judge Decker, Judges Humphreys, Petty, Beales, Alston, Huff, Chafin, O'Brien, Russell, AtLee and Malveaux[*780] Upon Rehearing En Banc[*44] On September 11, 2018, a panel of this Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded for further proceedings. See Lienau v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 254, 818 S.E.2d 58 (2018). A dissenting opinion was filed in the panel decision. We subsequently granted the Commonwealth's petition for rehearing en banc , stayed the mandate of the panel decision, and reinstated the appeal on the docket of this Court.[*781] Upon such rehearing en banc , the stay of this Court's September 11, 2018 mandate is lifted, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for the reasons stated in the panel's majority opinion.

Judges Humphreys, Petty, Beales, Alston, Huff, Chafin, and Russell voted to reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to the trial court in accordance with the majority opinion of the panel.

Chief Judge Decker, Judges O'Brien, AtLee, and Malveaux voted to affirm the judgment of the trial court for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of the original panel decision.

It is ordered that the trial court allow the court-appointed attorneys for the appellant, an additional fee of $200 for services rendered the appellant on the rehearing portion of this appeal, in addition to counsel's costs and necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses.

This order shall be published and certified to the trial court.