proponent instruction in Virginia

2025BACKGROUND “When reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Pena Pinedo v. Commonwealth, 300 Va. 116 , 118 (2021) (quoting Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 263 Va. 31, 33 (2002)). * This opinion is not designated for publication.

2025“When reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 263 Va. 31, 33 (2002).

2026“And in deciding whether a particular instruction is appropriate, we view the facts in the light most favorable to -9- the proponent of the instruction.” Holmes v. Commonwealth, 76 Va. App. 34 , 53 (2022) (quoting Cooper v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 377, 381 (2009)).

2026“And in deciding whether a particular instruction is appropriate, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Holmes v. Commonwealth, 76 Va. App. 34 , 53 (2022) (quoting Cooper v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 377, 381 (2009)).

2022The Court, though, “view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Lynn v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 336, 344 (1998).

2011We disagree. "`On appeal, when the issue is a refused jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.'" Connell v. Commonwealth, 34 Va.App. 429, 436 , 542 S.E.2d 49, 53 (2001) (quoting Lynn v. Commonwealth, 27 Va.App. 336, 344 , 499 S.E.2d 1, 4-5 (1998)).

2026“When reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Watson v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 197 , 207 (2019) (quoting Payne v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 855, 869 (2016)).

2025When reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction. - 17 - Watson v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 197 , 207 (2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Payne v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 855, 869 (2016)).

2026This Court will find an abuse of discretion only when “reasonable jurists could not differ.” Hicks v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 255 , 275 (2019). “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Dandridge v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 669 , 676 (2021) (quoting Lienau v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 254, 260 (2018)). 5 The jury acquitted him of abduction. -6- “A reviewing court’s responsibility in reviewing jury instructions is ‘to see that the law has been clearly stated and that t

2024Id. “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Dandridge v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 669 , 676 (2021) (quoting Lienau, 69 Va. App. at 260 ). “[J]ury instructions are proper only if supported by the evidence, and more than a scintilla of evidence is required.” Watson v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 197 , 207 (2019) (quoting - 11 - Payne v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 855, 869 (2016)); see Williams v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 240, 246 (2015) (“Although a defendant ‘is entitled to an i

2025“We review a trial court’s decisions in giving and denying requested jury instructions for abuse of discretion.” Holmes v. Commonwealth, 76 Va. App. 34 , 53 (2022) (quoting Conley v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 658 , 675 (2022)). “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Dandridge, 72 Va. App. at 676 (quoting Lienau, 69 Va. App. at 260 ). “[J]ury instructions are proper only if supported by the evidence, and more than a scintilla of evidence is required.” Watson v. Commonw

2024“When reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Williams v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 240, 244 (2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 263 Va. 31, 33 (2002)).

2026“When granted instructions fully and fairly cover a principle of law, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing another instruction relating to the same legal principle.” Hilton v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 293, 302 (2017) (quoting Daniels v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 460, 466 (2008)). “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Dandridge v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 669 , 676 (2021) (quoting Lienau, 69 Va. App. at 260).

2026“Thus, it is not error to refuse an instruction when there is no evidence to support it.” Id. at 247 (quoting Commonwealth v. Sands, 262 Va. 724, 729 (2001)). “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Dandridge v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 669 , 676 (2021) (quoting Lienau v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 254, 260 (2018)).

2025“The burden is on the proponent of an instruction ‘to satisfy the trial court that the proposed language -7- is . . . applicable to the facts of the case on trial.’” Holloman, 65 Va. App. at 174 (quoting Shaikh v. Johnson, 276 Va. 537, 546 (2008)).

2025“The burden is on the proponent of an instruction ‘to satisfy the trial court that the proposed language is . . . applicable to the facts of the case on trial.’” Holloman, 65 Va. App. at 174 (quoting Shaikh v. Johnson, 276 Va. 537, 546 (2008)).

2024“And in deciding whether a particular instruction is appropriate, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Cooper v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 377, 381 (2009) (citing Commonwealth v. Cary, 271 Va. 87, 91 (2006)).

2017However, when reviewing a trial court’s decision not to give a jury instruction, “we view the facts relevant to the determination of that issue in the light most favorable to [the proponent of the instruction].” Commonwealth v. Cary, 271 Va. 87, 91 , 623 S.E.2d 906, 907 (2006)).

2026This Court will find an abuse of discretion only when “reasonable jurists could not differ.” Hicks v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 255 , 275 (2019). “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Dandridge v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 669 , 676 (2021) (quoting Lienau v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 254, 260 (2018)). 5 The jury acquitted him of abduction. -6- “A reviewing court’s responsibility in reviewing jury instructions is ‘to see that the law has been clearly stated and that t

2025“A reviewing court’s responsibility in reviewing jury instructions is ‘to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues [that] the evidence fairly raises.’” Conley v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 658 , 674-75 (2022) (quoting Fahringer v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 208, 211 (2019)). “[I]n deciding whether a particular instruction is appropriate, [the appellate court] view[s] the facts in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Holmes v. Commonwealth, 76 Va. App. 34 , 53 (2022) (quoting Cooper v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 377, 381 (2009)).

2005When reviewing a trial judge’s decision refusing a proffered jury instruction, “ ‘[t]he appropriate standard of review requires that we view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to [the proponent of the instruction].’ ” Hartigan v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 243, 257 , 522 S.E.2d 406, 412 (1999) (quoting Boone v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 130, 131 , 415 S.E.2d 250, 251 (1992)).

2005When reviewing a trial judge’s decision refusing a proffered jury instruction, “ ‘[t]he appropriate standard of review requires that we view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to [the proponent of the instruction].’ ” Hartigan v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 243, 257 , 522 S.E.2d 406, 412 (1999) (quoting Boone v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 130, 131 , 415 S.E.2d 250, 251 (1992)).

2018“A reviewing court’s responsibility in reviewing jury instructions is ‘to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.’” Darnell v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 485, 488 , 370 S.E.2d 717, 719 (1988) (quoting Swisher v. Swisher, 223 Va. 499, 503 , 290 S.E.2d 856, 858 (1982)). “[I]n deciding whether a particular instruction is appropriate, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Cooper v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 377, 381 , 673 S.E.2d 185, 187 (2009).

2018“A reviewing court’s responsibility in reviewing jury instructions is ‘to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.’” Darnell v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 485, 488 , 370 S.E.2d 717, 719 (1988) (quoting Swisher v. Swisher, 223 Va. 499, 503 , 290 S.E.2d 856, 858 (1982)). “[I]n deciding whether a particular instruction is appropriate, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Cooper v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 377, 381 , 673 S.E.2d 185, 187 (2009).

2015BACKGROUND “When reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 263 Va. 31, 33 , 557 S.E.2d 220, 221 (2002) (citing Blondel v. Hays, 241 Va. 467, 469 , 403 S.E.2d 340, 341 (1991)).

2015BACKGROUND “When reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 263 Va. 31, 33 , 557 S.E.2d 220, 221 (2002) (citing Blondel v. Hays, 241 Va. 467, 469 , 403 S.E.2d 340, 341 (1991)).

2024“When reviewing a trial judge’s decision refusing a proffered jury instruction, ‘the appropriate standard of review requires that we view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to [the proponent of the instruction].’” Stevens v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 234, 247 (2005) (en banc) (alteration in original) (quoting Hartigan v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 243, 257 (1999)).

2005When reviewing a trial judge’s decision refusing a proffered jury instruction, “ ‘[t]he appropriate standard of review requires that we view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to [the proponent of the instruction].’ ” Hartigan v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 243, 257 , 522 S.E.2d 406, 412 (1999) (quoting Boone v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 130, 131 , 415 S.E.2d 250, 251 (1992)).

2009BACKGROUND Where the issue on appeal is the refusal of the trial court to grant a lesser-included offense instruction, “even though the Commonwealth prevailed at trial, we must view the evidence on this issue in the light most favorable to the defendant, the proponent of the instruction.” Commonwealth v. Leal, 265 Va. 142, 145 , 574 S.E.2d 285, 287 (2003).

2009BACKGROUND Where the issue on appeal is the refusal of the trial court to grant a lesser-included offense instruction, “even though the Commonwealth prevailed at trial, we must view the evidence on this issue in the light most favorable to the defendant, the proponent of the instruction.” Commonwealth v. Leal, 265 Va. 142, 145 , 574 S.E.2d 285, 287 (2003).

2025“Upon review, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Id.

2025“Upon review, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Id. 3 And in any event, at the end of the evidence the trial court found that the castle doctrine did not apply because Rivera was a resident in appellant’s home. - 10 - 1.

2025“We review a trial court’s decisions in giving and denying requested jury instructions for abuse of discretion.” Holmes v. Commonwealth, 76 Va. App. 34 , 53 (2022) (quoting Conley v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 658 , 675 (2022)). “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Dandridge, 72 Va. App. at 676 (quoting Lienau, 69 Va. App. at 260 ). “[J]ury instructions are proper only if supported by the evidence, and more than a scintilla of evidence is required.” Watson v. Commonw

2024Id. “[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Dandridge v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 669 , 676 (2021) (quoting Lienau, 69 Va. App. at 260 ). “[J]ury instructions are proper only if supported by the evidence, and more than a scintilla of evidence is required.” Watson v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 197 , 207 (2019) (quoting - 11 - Payne v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 855, 869 (2016)); see Williams v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 240, 246 (2015) (“Although a defendant ‘is entitled to an i

2018“In determining whether evidence amounts to more than a scintilla, ‘we must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to [the proponent of the instruction].’” Bell, 66 Va. App. at 486 , 788 S.E.2d at 275 (quoting Herbin v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 173, 181 , 503 S.E.2d 226, 230 (1998)). -8- “‘The weight of the credible evidence that will amount to more than a mere scintilla . . . is a matter to be resolved on a case-by-case basis’ by assessing the evidence in support of a proposition against the ‘other credible evidence that negates’ it.” Woolridge v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 339, 348

2018“In determining whether evidence amounts to more than a scintilla, ‘we must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to [the proponent of the instruction].’” Bell, 66 Va. App. at 486 , 788 S.E.2d at 275 (quoting Herbin v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 173, 181 , 503 S.E.2d 226, 230 (1998)). -8- “‘The weight of the credible evidence that will amount to more than a mere scintilla . . . is a matter to be resolved on a case-by-case basis’ by assessing the evidence in support of a proposition against the ‘other credible evidence that negates’ it.” Woolridge v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 339, 348

2015Additionally, “an instruction must be supported by more than a scintilla of evidence.” Hatcher v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 811, 814 , 241 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1978) (citing Gibson v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 412, 417 , 219 S.E.2d 845, 849 (1975)). “‘The weight of the credible evidence that will amount to more than a mere scintilla . . . is a matter to be resolved on a case-by-case basis’ by assessing the evidence in support of a proposition against the ‘other credible evidence that negates’ it.” Woolridge v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 339, 348 , 512 S.E.2d 153, 158 (1999) (quoting Brandau v. Commonwealth

2015Additionally, “an instruction must be supported by more than a scintilla of evidence.” Hatcher v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 811, 814 , 241 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1978) (citing Gibson v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 412, 417 , 219 S.E.2d 845, 849 (1975)). “‘The weight of the credible evidence that will amount to more than a mere scintilla . . . is a matter to be resolved on a case-by-case basis’ by assessing the evidence in support of a proposition against the ‘other credible evidence that negates’ it.” Woolridge v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 339, 348 , 512 S.E.2d 153, 158 (1999) (quoting Brandau v. Commonwealth

2015Additionally, “an instruction must be supported by more than a scintilla of evidence.” Hatcher v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 811, 814 , 241 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1978) (citing Gibson v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 412, 417 , 219 S.E.2d 845, 849 (1975)). “‘The weight of the credible evidence that will amount to more than a mere scintilla . . . is a matter to be resolved on a case-by-case basis’ by assessing the evidence in support of a proposition against the ‘other credible evidence that negates’ it.” Woolridge v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 339, 348 , 512 S.E.2d 153, 158 (1999) (quoting Brandau v. Commonwealth

2015Additionally, “an instruction must be supported by more than a scintilla of evidence.” Hatcher v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 811, 814 , 241 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1978) (citing Gibson v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 412, 417 , 219 S.E.2d 845, 849 (1975)). “‘The weight of the credible evidence that will amount to more than a mere scintilla . . . is a matter to be resolved on a case-by-case basis’ by assessing the evidence in support of a proposition against the ‘other credible evidence that negates’ it.” Woolridge v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 339, 348 , 512 S.E.2d 153, 158 (1999) (quoting Brandau v. Commonwealth

2025In making that determination, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction, Pena Pinedo, 300 Va. at 118, and if, when the evidence is viewed in that light, “a proffered instruction finds any support in credible evidence, its refusal is reversible error[,]” Davis v. Commonwealth, -7- 68 Va. App. 725, 731 (2018) (quoting McClung v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 654, 657 (1975)). “[W]e have rejected the concept that a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense must always be given.” Vaughn, 263 Va. at 35 .

2023“When reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Williams v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 240, 244 (2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 263 Va. 31, 33 (2002)). “[T]he evidence asserted in support of such an instruction ‘must amount to more than a scintilla.’” Buchanan v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 389, 409 (1989) (quoting Justus v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 667, 678 (1981)). “‘If a proffered instruction [on the defendant’s theory of defense] finds any support in credible evidence,’ howeve

2025We apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard alongside our recognition that “[a] litigant is entitled to jury instructions supporting his or her theory of the case if sufficient evidence is introduced to support that theory and if the instructions correctly state the law.” Schlimmer v. Poverty Hunt Club, 268 Va. 74, 78 (2004).

2024Id. (quoting Schlimmer v. Poverty Hunt Club, 268 Va. 74, 78 (2004)); Sawyer, 264 Va. at 75 (“Hence, a defendant who asserts a defense of contributory negligence is not entitled to a jury instruction on contributory negligence if that defendant only adduces a mere scintilla of evidence of the plaintiff’s purported contributory negligence.”).

2009Instruction of the Jury “On appeal, when the issue is a refused jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Lynn v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 336, 344 , 499 S.E.2d 1, 4-5 (1998), aff’d, 257 Va. 239 , 514 S.E.2d 147 (1999). “[J]ury instructions are proper only if supported by the evidence” and “more than a scintilla of evidence is necessary.” Commonwealth v. Donkor, 256 Va. 443, 445 , 507 S.E.2d 75, 76 (1998).

2009Instruction of the Jury “On appeal, when the issue is a refused jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Lynn v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 336, 344 , 499 S.E.2d 1, 4-5 (1998), aff’d, 257 Va. 239 , 514 S.E.2d 147 (1999). “[J]ury instructions are proper only if supported by the evidence” and “more than a scintilla of evidence is necessary.” Commonwealth v. Donkor, 256 Va. 443, 445 , 507 S.E.2d 75, 76 (1998).

2010Edwards, 235 Va. at 509 , 370 S.E.2d at 301 ; United *550 States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 1069, 1072 (4th Cir.1982).

2003United States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 1069, 1072 (4th Cir. 1982); Commonwealth v. Edwards, 235 Va. 499, 509 , 370 S.E.2d 296, 301 (1988); Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Westmoreland-LG & E Partners, 259 Va. 319, 325 , 526 S.E.2d 750, 755 (2000); Anderson v. Anderson, 29 Va. App. 673, 681-82, 514 S.E.2d 369, 374 (1999); RML Corp. v. Assurance Co. of Am., 60 Va. Cir. 269, 274 (Norfolk 2002).

2024“When we review a trial court’s decision to refuse jury instructions, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Hancock-Underwood v. Knight, 277 Va. 127, 130 (2009).

2023“When we review a trial court’s decision to refuse jury instructions, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Hancock- Underwood v. Knight, 277 Va. 127, 130 (2009).

2026The attorney-client privilege attaches “to a document even if the document does not contain, or is not accompanied by, a written request for legal advice, if the proponent of the privilege sustains its burden of proof to show that the document was prepared with the intention of securing legal advice on its contents.” Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. Westmoreland-LG&E Partners, 259 Va. 319, 325 (2000).

2023“The privilege attaches . . . even if the document does not contain, or is not accompanied by, a written request for legal advice, if the proponent of the privilege sustains its burden of proof to show that the document was prepared” to receive “legal advice on its contents.” Va. Elec. and Power Co. v. Westmoreland-LG & E Partners, 259 Va. 319, 326 (2000).

2025“Upon review, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Mayberry v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 93, 101 (2016).

2025“Upon review, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Mayberry v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 93, 101 (2016).

2010Edwards, 235 Va. at 509 , 370 S.E.2d at 301 ; United *550 States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 1069, 1072 (4th Cir.1982).

2010Edwards, 235 Va. at 509 , 370 S.E.2d at 301 ; United *550 States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 1069, 1072 (4th Cir.1982).

2025“When reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Brown v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 746, 789 (2018) (quoting King v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 580, 583 (2015)).

2023“When reviewing a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” Williams v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 240, 244 (2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 263 Va. 31, 33 (2002)). “[T]he evidence asserted in support of such an instruction ‘must amount to more than a scintilla.’” Buchanan v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 389, 409 (1989) (quoting Justus v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 667, 678 (1981)). “‘If a proffered instruction [on the defendant’s theory of defense] finds any support in credible evidence,’ howeve