Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Morris v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2009MOTION FOR MISTRIAL Appellant also argues that the trial court improperly denied his motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s allegedly improper reference to appellant’s prior felony convictions during rebuttal argument before the jury at the sentencing phase of the trial.5 Under settled law, a “timely motion for a mistrial or a cautionary instruction is required to preserve the issue for appeal even if an objection was properly made to the conduct or comments and improperly overruled by the trial judge.” Morris v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 283, 287 , 416 S.E.2d 462, 464 (1992) (en banc 2009MOTION FOR MISTRIAL Appellant also argues that the trial court improperly denied his motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s allegedly improper reference to appellant’s prior felony convictions during rebuttal argument before the jury at the sentencing phase of the trial.5 Under settled law, a “timely motion for a mistrial or a cautionary instruction is required to preserve the issue for appeal even if an objection was properly made to the conduct or comments and improperly overruled by the trial judge.” Morris v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 283, 287 , 416 S.E.2d 462, 464 (1992) (en banc | 7 | 7 |
Schmitt v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2009MOTION FOR MISTRIAL Appellant also argues that the trial court improperly denied his motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s allegedly improper reference to appellant’s prior felony convictions during rebuttal argument before the jury at the sentencing phase of the trial.5 Under settled law, a “timely motion for a mistrial or a cautionary instruction is required to preserve the issue for appeal even if an objection was properly made to the conduct or comments and improperly overruled by the trial judge.” Morris v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 283, 287 , 416 S.E.2d 462, 464 (1992) (en banc 2009MOTION FOR MISTRIAL Appellant also argues that the trial court improperly denied his motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s allegedly improper reference to appellant’s prior felony convictions during rebuttal argument before the jury at the sentencing phase of the trial.5 Under settled law, a “timely motion for a mistrial or a cautionary instruction is required to preserve the issue for appeal even if an objection was properly made to the conduct or comments and improperly overruled by the trial judge.” Morris v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 283, 287 , 416 S.E.2d 462, 464 (1992) (en banc | 5 | 5 |
Bennett v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2009“There appears to be no exception in Virginia law to the strict application of this rule.” Bennett v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 261, 281 , 511 S.E.2d 439, 448-49 (1999). 2009“There appears to be no exception in Virginia law to the strict application of this rule.” Bennett v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 261, 281 , 511 S.E.2d 439, 448-49 (1999). | 4 | 4 |
Cheng v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1999See Cheng v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 26, 38 , 393 S.E.2d 599, 605-06 (1990). 1999See Cheng v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 26, 38 , 393 S.E.2d 599, 605-06 (1990). | 3 | 3 |
Glenn v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2012DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION MOTIONS When reviewing a denial of a suppression motion, we review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, giving it the benefit of any reasonable inferences.” Glenn v. Commonwealth, 49 Va.App. 413, 416 , 642 S.E.2d 282, 283 (2007) (en banc) (citation omitted), aff'd, 275 Va. 123 , 654 S.E.2d 910 (2008). 2012DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION MOTIONS When reviewing a denial of a suppression motion, we review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, giving it the benefit of any reasonable inferences.” Glenn v. Commonwealth, 49 Va.App. 413, 416 , 642 S.E.2d 282, 283 (2007) (en banc) (citation omitted), aff'd, 275 Va. 123 , 654 S.E.2d 910 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Johnny Edward Harter v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen2 sentences2003See Buck v. Jordan, 256 Va. 535, 545 , 508 S.E.2d 880, 885-86 (1998) (noting that, without an objection, a party does not preserve for appeal the court's refusal to rule); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 316, 324 , 157 S.E.2d 185, 191 (1967) (finding waiver where counsel, after objecting to a prosecutor's remark, "did not insist that the court rule"); Harter v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 743, 752 , 525 S.E.2d 606, 610-11 (2000); Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 454 , 431 S.E.2d 886, 890 (1993) ("Because he was denied nothing by the trial court, there is no ruling for us to review."). - 2003See Buck v. Jordan, 256 Va. 535, 545 , 508 S.E.2d 880, 885-86 (1998) (noting that, without an objection, a party does not preserve for appeal the court's refusal to rule); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 316, 324 , 157 S.E.2d 185, 191 (1967) (finding waiver where counsel, after objecting to a prosecutor's remark, "did not insist that the court rule"); Harter v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 743, 752 , 525 S.E.2d 606, 610-11 (2000); Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 454 , 431 S.E.2d 886, 890 (1993) ("Because he was denied nothing by the trial court, there is no ruling for us to review."). - | 1 | 1 |
Fisher v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2003See Buck v. Jordan, 256 Va. 535, 545 , 508 S.E.2d 880, 885-86 (1998) (noting that, without an objection, a party does not preserve for appeal the court's refusal to rule); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 316, 324 , 157 S.E.2d 185, 191 (1967) (finding waiver where counsel, after objecting to a prosecutor's remark, "did not insist that the court rule"); Harter v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 743, 752 , 525 S.E.2d 606, 610-11 (2000); Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 454 , 431 S.E.2d 886, 890 (1993) ("Because he was denied nothing by the trial court, there is no ruling for us to review."). - 2003See Buck v. Jordan, 256 Va. 535, 545 , 508 S.E.2d 880, 885-86 (1998) (noting that, without an objection, a party does not preserve for appeal the court's refusal to rule); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 316, 324 , 157 S.E.2d 185, 191 (1967) (finding waiver where counsel, after objecting to a prosecutor's remark, "did not insist that the court rule"); Harter v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 743, 752 , 525 S.E.2d 606, 610-11 (2000); Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 454 , 431 S.E.2d 886, 890 (1993) ("Because he was denied nothing by the trial court, there is no ruling for us to review."). - | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2003See Buck v. Jordan, 256 Va. 535, 545 , 508 S.E.2d 880, 885-86 (1998) (noting that, without an objection, a party does not preserve for appeal the court's refusal to rule); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 316, 324 , 157 S.E.2d 185, 191 (1967) (finding waiver where counsel, after objecting to a prosecutor's remark, "did not insist that the court rule"); Harter v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 743, 752 , 525 S.E.2d 606, 610-11 (2000); Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 454 , 431 S.E.2d 886, 890 (1993) ("Because he was denied nothing by the trial court, there is no ruling for us to review."). - 2003See Buck v. Jordan, 256 Va. 535, 545 , 508 S.E.2d 880, 885-86 (1998) (noting that, without an objection, a party does not preserve for appeal the court's refusal to rule); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 316, 324 , 157 S.E.2d 185, 191 (1967) (finding waiver where counsel, after objecting to a prosecutor's remark, "did not insist that the court rule"); Harter v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 743, 752 , 525 S.E.2d 606, 610-11 (2000); Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 454 , 431 S.E.2d 886, 890 (1993) ("Because he was denied nothing by the trial court, there is no ruling for us to review."). - | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2003See Buck v. Jordan, 256 Va. 535, 545 , 508 S.E.2d 880, 885-86 (1998) (noting that, without an objection, a party does not preserve for appeal the court's refusal to rule); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 316, 324 , 157 S.E.2d 185, 191 (1967) (finding waiver where counsel, after objecting to a prosecutor's remark, "did not insist that the court rule"); Harter v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 743, 752 , 525 S.E.2d 606, 610-11 (2000); Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 454 , 431 S.E.2d 886, 890 (1993) ("Because he was denied nothing by the trial court, there is no ruling for us to review."). - 2003See Buck v. Jordan, 256 Va. 535, 545 , 508 S.E.2d 880, 885-86 (1998) (noting that, without an objection, a party does not preserve for appeal the court's refusal to rule); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 316, 324 , 157 S.E.2d 185, 191 (1967) (finding waiver where counsel, after objecting to a prosecutor's remark, "did not insist that the court rule"); Harter v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 743, 752 , 525 S.E.2d 606, 610-11 (2000); Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 454 , 431 S.E.2d 886, 890 (1993) ("Because he was denied nothing by the trial court, there is no ruling for us to review."). - | 1 | 1 |
Buck v. Jordangreen2 sentences2003See Buck v. Jordan, 256 Va. 535, 545 , 508 S.E.2d 880, 885-86 (1998) (noting that, without an objection, a party does not preserve for appeal the court's refusal to rule); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 316, 324 , 157 S.E.2d 185, 191 (1967) (finding waiver where counsel, after objecting to a prosecutor's remark, "did not insist that the court rule"); Harter v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 743, 752 , 525 S.E.2d 606, 610-11 (2000); Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 454 , 431 S.E.2d 886, 890 (1993) ("Because he was denied nothing by the trial court, there is no ruling for us to review."). - 2003See Buck v. Jordan, 256 Va. 535, 545 , 508 S.E.2d 880, 885-86 (1998) (noting that, without an objection, a party does not preserve for appeal the court's refusal to rule); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 316, 324 , 157 S.E.2d 185, 191 (1967) (finding waiver where counsel, after objecting to a prosecutor's remark, "did not insist that the court rule"); Harter v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 743, 752 , 525 S.E.2d 606, 610-11 (2000); Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 454 , 431 S.E.2d 886, 890 (1993) ("Because he was denied nothing by the trial court, there is no ruling for us to review."). - | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yeatts v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2017At no time did Carter request a mistrial or a cautionary instruction. 4 "We have repeatedly held that if a defendant wishes to take advantage on appeal of some incident he regards as objectionable enough to warrant a mistrial, he must make his motion timely or else be deemed to have waived his objection." Yeatts v. Commonwealth , 242 Va. 121 , 137, 410 S.E.2d 254 , 264 (1991). 2017At no time did Carter request a mistrial or a cautionary instruction. 4 "We have repeatedly held that if a defendant wishes to take advantage on appeal of some incident he regards as objectionable enough to warrant a mistrial, he must make his motion timely or else be deemed to have waived his objection." Yeatts v. Commonwealth , 242 Va. 121 , 137, 410 S.E.2d 254 , 264 (1991). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Reid v. Baumgardner
green
2 sentences2017"Making a timely motion for mistrial means making the motion 'when the objectionable words were spoken.' " Id. (quoting Reid v. Baumgardner , 217 Va. 769 , 774, 232 S.E.2d 778 , 781 (1977) ). 2017"Making a timely motion for mistrial means making the motion 'when the objectionable words were spoken.' " Id. (quoting Reid v. Baumgardner , 217 Va. 769 , 774, 232 S.E.2d 778 , 781 (1977) ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Thomas v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2012“When contesting a prosecutor’s allegedly improper argument, a ‘timely motion for a mistrial or a cautionary instruction is required to preserve the issue for appeal even if an objection was properly made to the conduct or comments and improperly overruled by the trial judge.’ ” 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). 6 C. 2012“When contesting a prosecutor’s allegedly improper argument, a ‘timely motion for a mistrial or a cautionary instruction is required to preserve the issue for appeal even if an objection was properly made to the conduct or comments and improperly overruled by the trial judge.’ ” 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). 6 C. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Thomas v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2012“When contesting a prosecutor’s allegedly improper argument, a ‘timely motion for a mistrial or a cautionary instruction is required to preserve the issue for appeal even if an objection was properly made to the conduct or comments and improperly overruled by the trial judge.’ ” 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). 6 C. 2012“When contesting a prosecutor’s allegedly improper argument, a ‘timely motion for a mistrial or a cautionary instruction is required to preserve the issue for appeal even if an objection was properly made to the conduct or comments and improperly overruled by the trial judge.’ ” 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). 6 C. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Glenn v. Com.
green
2 sentences2012DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION MOTIONS When reviewing a denial of a suppression motion, we review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, giving it the benefit of any reasonable inferences.” Glenn v. Commonwealth, 49 Va.App. 413, 416 , 642 S.E.2d 282, 283 (2007) (en banc) (citation omitted), aff'd, 275 Va. 123 , 654 S.E.2d 910 (2008). 2012DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION MOTIONS When reviewing a denial of a suppression motion, we review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, giving it the benefit of any reasonable inferences.” Glenn v. Commonwealth, 49 Va.App. 413, 416 , 642 S.E.2d 282, 283 (2007) (en banc) (citation omitted), aff'd, 275 Va. 123 , 654 S.E.2d 910 (2008). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Martinez v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2003See Buck v. Jordan, 256 Va. 535, 545 , 508 S.E.2d 880, 885-86 (1998) (noting that, without an objection, a party does not preserve for appeal the court's refusal to rule); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 316, 324 , 157 S.E.2d 185, 191 (1967) (finding waiver where counsel, after objecting to a prosecutor's remark, "did not insist that the court rule"); Harter v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 743, 752 , 525 S.E.2d 606, 610-11 (2000); Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 454 , 431 S.E.2d 886, 890 (1993) ("Because he was denied nothing by the trial court, there is no ruling for us to review."). - 2003See Buck v. Jordan, 256 Va. 535, 545 , 508 S.E.2d 880, 885-86 (1998) (noting that, without an objection, a party does not preserve for appeal the court's refusal to rule); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 316, 324 , 157 S.E.2d 185, 191 (1967) (finding waiver where counsel, after objecting to a prosecutor's remark, "did not insist that the court rule"); Harter v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 743, 752 , 525 S.E.2d 606, 610-11 (2000); Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 454 , 431 S.E.2d 886, 890 (1993) ("Because he was denied nothing by the trial court, there is no ruling for us to review."). - | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Craddock v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1999“The recognized purpose of this requirement is to prevent retrials by calling error to the attention of the trial judge, who may then caution the jury to disregard the inappropriate remarks.” Craddock, 16 Va.App. at 405 , 429 S.E.2d at 891 . 1999“The recognized purpose of this requirement is to prevent retrials by calling error to the attention of the trial judge, who may then caution the jury to disregard the inappropriate remarks.” Craddock, 16 Va.App. at 405 , 429 S.E.2d at 891 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.