holdings results waiver in Virginia

2026As a result, under Rule 5A:18, Wilson preserved only his excited-utterance hearsay objection to the admission of the contents of Hickson’s 911 call, and he waived his objection to the court’s application of the present-sense-impression exception.10 This is so because when “‘one or more alternative holdings [support] an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v. Hatchett, 245 F.3d 625, 644-45 (7th Cir.

2026Accordingly, if there are alternative holdings on an issue, “the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v. Hatchett, 245 F.3d 625, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2001)).

2026As a result, under Rule 5A:18, Wilson preserved only his excited-utterance hearsay objection to the admission of the contents of Hickson’s 911 call, and he waived his objection to the court’s application of the present-sense-impression exception.10 This is so because when “‘one or more alternative holdings [support] an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v. Hatchett, 245 F.3d 625, 644-45 (7th Cir.

2026Accordingly, if there are alternative holdings on an issue, “the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v. Hatchett, 245 F.3d 625, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2001)).

2025Servs. v. Winslow, 40 Va. App. 556, 563 (2003). “[I]n ‘situations in which there [are] one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v. Hatchett, 245 F.3d 625, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2001)).

2025Servs. v. Winslow, 40 Va. App. 556, 563 (2003). “[I]n ‘situations in which there [are] one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v. Hatchett, 245 F.3d 625, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2001)).

2026As a result, under Rule 5A:18, Wilson preserved only his excited-utterance hearsay objection to the admission of the contents of Hickson’s 911 call, and he waived his objection to the court’s application of the present-sense-impression exception.10 This is so because when “‘one or more alternative holdings [support] an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v. Hatchett, 245 F.3d 625, 644-45 (7th Cir.

2009Womack does not argue that the trial court erred by admitting the cocaine on the grounds that Womack failed to timely file a motion to suppress seven days before trial or that Womack’s objection was untimely given that the evidence had already been admitted. “[I]n ‘situations in which there is one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 , 609 S.E.2d 58, 60 (2005) (quoting United States v. Hatchet

2023Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7-8 (2005) (finding that because the appellant had not challenged the court’s decision to terminate her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), this Court did not need to address her sufficiency argument regarding termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2)). “[I]n ‘situations in which there [are] one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v.

2022Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7-8 (2005) (finding that because the appellant had not challenged the court’s decision to terminate her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), the Court did not need to address her sufficiency argument regarding termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2)). “[I]n ‘situations in which there [are] one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v.

2019“It is well-settled that a party who challenges the ruling of a lower court must on appeal assign error to each articulated basis for that ruling.” Ferguson v. Stokes, 287 Va. 446 , 452 (2014) (quoting Manchester Oaks Homeowners Ass’n v. Batt, 284 Va. 409 , 421 (2012)). “[I]n ‘situations in which there is one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v. Hatchett, 245 F

2005For these reasons, we join the majority of jurisdictions holding that in “situations in which there is one or more alternative holdings on an issue,” the appellant’s “failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.” United States v. Hatchett, 245 F.3d 625, 644-45 (7th Cir.2001) (quoting Kauthar SDN BHD v. Sternberg, 149 F.3d 659, 668 (7th Cir.1998)). 2 If we were to hold otherwise, “an appellant could avoid the adverse effect of a separate and independent *117 basis for the judgment by ignoring it and leaving

2023On appeal, a reviewing court need not address alternate holdings of a trial court if the trial court rendered an “independently dispositive ruling.” Commonwealth v. Lambert, 292 Va. 748, 759 (2016).

2023Commc’ns, LLC, 301 Va. 31 , 45 (2022) (affirming based on the trial court’s unchallenged alternative ruling and declining to address the challenged ruling); Parker-Smith v. Sto Corp., 262 Va. 432, 441 (2001) (noting the court’s inability to consider argument where appellant did not assign error to the circuit court’s independent basis for dismissing her claim). “[I]n ‘situations in which there is one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address -5- one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.

2022Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7-8 (2005) (finding that because the appellant had not challenged the court’s decision to terminate her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), the Court did not need to address her sufficiency argument regarding termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2)). “[I]n ‘situations in which there [are] one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v.