refused instruction in Virginia

2023On appeal, “we view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to the defendant.” Boone v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 130, 131 (1992).

2017“Although the Commonwealth prevailed at trial, the appropriate standard of review requires that we view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to [appellant].” Boone v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 130, 131 , 415 S.E.2d 250, 251 (1992).

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)).

2013In making this determination, we “‘view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to [appellant].’” 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)).

2023Applying the Proffered Evidence to the Necessity Defense Elements When we review a circuit court’s refusal to give 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 defendant.” Byers v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 174, 182 (2001) (quoting Seegars v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 641, 643 (1994)).

2004Based upon our examination of the record and evidence presented in the case, we are satisfied that any errors -4- Appellant also contends the trial court erred by refusing to give her proffered Jury Instruction X-1, which stated: “If you believe that the action taken by [appellant] occurred in her home and; that [appellant] was assaulted in her home; and that the action taken by [appellant] was necessary to repel the assailant from her home, then you shall find [appellant] not guilty.” “[W]hen we consider a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered instruction, ‘the appropriate standard of rev

1993Brandau v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 408, 412 , 430 S.E.2d 563, 565 (1993). “[T]he appropriate standard of review requires that we view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable” to defendant.

1993Brandau v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 408, 412 , 430 S.E.2d 563, 565 (1993). “[T]he appropriate standard of review requires that we view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable” to defendant.

2005See Pilot Life v. Karcher, 217 Va. 497, 498 , 229 S.E.2d 884, 885 (1976) (“While a transcript or written statement is generally the vehicle for showing that timely objection to instructions was made before the trial court to preserve the point on appeal, such objection may also be shown and preserved where, in a refused instruction, the objecting party propounds the contrary theory to one set forth in a granted instruction.”).

2005See Pilot Life v. Karcher, 217 Va. 497, 498 , 229 S.E.2d 884, 885 (1976) (“While a transcript or written statement is generally the vehicle for showing that timely objection to instructions was made before the trial court to preserve the point on appeal, such objection may also be shown and preserved where, in a refused instruction, the objecting party propounds the contrary theory to one set forth in a granted instruction.”).

1997"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)). "`[T]he appropriate standard of review requires that we view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to'" Addison.

1997"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)). "`[T]he appropriate standard of review requires that we view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to'" Addison.

2010BACKGROUND 1 In reviewing the trial court’s decision to refuse the jury instruction, “we must view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to the defendant.” Turner v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 270, 275 , 476 S.E.2d 504, 507 (1996), aff’d, 255 Va. 1 , 492 S.E.2d 447 (1997).

2010BACKGROUND 1 In reviewing the trial court’s decision to refuse the jury instruction, “we must view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to the defendant.” Turner v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 270, 275 , 476 S.E.2d 504, 507 (1996), aff’d, 255 Va. 1 , 492 S.E.2d 447 (1997).

2005“Although the Commonwealth prevailed at trial, the appropriate standard of review requires that we view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to the defendant.” Boone v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 130, 131 , 415 S.E.2d 250, 251 (1992) (citing Blondel v. Hays, 241 Va. 467, 469 , 403 S.E.2d 340, 341 (1991)).

2005“Although the Commonwealth prevailed at trial, the appropriate standard of review requires that we view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to the defendant.” Boone v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 130, 131 , 415 S.E.2d 250, 251 (1992) (citing Blondel v. Hays, 241 Va. 467, 469 , 403 S.E.2d 340, 341 (1991)).

2025Id. at 526-27 .

1996Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 524, 526 , 414 S.E.2d 401, 401 (1992) (en banc).

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)).

2010Stevens v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 234, 247 , 616 S.E.2d 754, 760 (2005) (citations omitted).

2001When reviewing a refused entrapment instruction, the Court views the evidence "in the light most favorable to the theory of entrapment." Neighbors v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 18, 19 , 197 S.E.2d 207, 208 (1973).

2001When reviewing a refused entrapment instruction, the Court views the evidence "in the light most favorable to the theory of entrapment." Neighbors v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 18, 19 , 197 S.E.2d 207, 208 (1973).

1997"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)). "`[T]he appropriate standard of review requires that we view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to'" Addison.

1997"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)). "`[T]he appropriate standard of review requires that we view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to'" Addison.

2023Applying the Proffered Evidence to the Necessity Defense Elements When we review a circuit court’s refusal to give 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 defendant.” Byers v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 174, 182 (2001) (quoting Seegars v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 641, 643 (1994)).

2023Given the procedural posture of this case, we are not addressing the circuit court’s refusal to give a jury instruction; however, we likewise “are concerned with [appellant’s] version of the events surrounding the crime[] and not a determination of its truthfulness.” Arnold v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 781, 787 (2002) (alterations in original); see also Portillo-Vega, 478 F.3d at 1197 (viewing evidence favorable to the defendant when reviewing district court’s decision precluding duress defense upon government’s motion in limine).

2023Given the procedural posture of this case, we are not addressing the circuit court’s refusal to give a jury instruction; however, we likewise “are concerned with [appellant’s] version of the events surrounding the crime[] and not a determination of its truthfulness.” Arnold v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 781, 787 (2002) (alterations in original); see also Portillo-Vega, 478 F.3d at 1197 (viewing evidence favorable to the defendant when reviewing district court’s decision precluding duress defense upon government’s motion in limine).

2017In spite of this deference to appellant, “[t]he [trial court] has broad discretion in giving or denying instructions requested.” Gaines v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 562, 568 , 574 S.E.2d 775, 778 (2003) (en banc) (citations omitted).

2017In spite of this deference to appellant, “[t]he [trial court] has broad discretion in giving or denying instructions requested.” Gaines v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 562, 568 , 574 S.E.2d 775, 778 (2003) (en banc) (citations omitted).

2014BACKGROUND The appellate court, when considering a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, views “‘the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable’ to the appellant.” Woolridge v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 339, 348 , 512 S.E.2d 153, 158 (1999) (quoting Boone v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 130, 131 , 415 S.E.2d 250, 251 (1992)).

2014BACKGROUND The appellate court, when considering a trial court’s refusal to give a proffered jury instruction, views “‘the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable’ to the appellant.” Woolridge v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 339, 348 , 512 S.E.2d 153, 158 (1999) (quoting Boone v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 130, 131 , 415 S.E.2d 250, 251 (1992)).

2012Viewing the evidence in that light, “the accused is entitled, on request, to have the jury instructed on a lesser included offense that is supported by - 12 - more than a ‘scintilla of evidence’ in the record.” Bunn v. Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 593, 599 , 466 S.E.2d 744, 746 (1996) (quoting Brandau v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 408, 411 , 430 S.E.2d 563, 564 (1993)).

2012Viewing the evidence in that light, “the accused is entitled, on request, to have the jury instructed on a lesser included offense that is supported by - 12 - more than a ‘scintilla of evidence’ in the record.” Bunn v. Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 593, 599 , 466 S.E.2d 744, 746 (1996) (quoting Brandau v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 408, 411 , 430 S.E.2d 563, 564 (1993)).

2006“The refused instruction would have, in effect, told the jury that it was to determine the issue of the admissibility of the confession and, if it believed that the confession was not voluntary, to reject it as evidence.” McCoy v. Commonwealth, 206 Va. 470, 475 , 144 S.E.2d 303, 308 (1965).

2006“The refused instruction would have, in effect, told the jury that it was to determine the issue of the admissibility of the confession and, if it believed that the confession was not voluntary, to reject it as evidence.” McCoy v. Commonwealth, 206 Va. 470, 475 , 144 S.E.2d 303, 308 (1965).

2006By doing so, the proposed instruction disordered the factfinding task of the jury—which when properly exercised—focuses on ‘Voluntariness only insofar as it affects the weight or credibility of the confession.” Mathews, 207 Va. at 918-19 , 153 S.E.2d at 240 (emphasis added); see also Wooden, 208 Va. at 631 n. 3, 159 S.E.2d at 625 n. 3. *215 For these reasons, the trial court did not err in refusing Villafana’s proposed instruction. 1 We affirm his convictions.

2006By doing so, the proposed instruction disordered the factfinding task of the jury—which when properly exercised—focuses on ‘Voluntariness only insofar as it affects the weight or credibility of the confession.” Mathews, 207 Va. at 918-19 , 153 S.E.2d at 240 (emphasis added); see also Wooden, 208 Va. at 631 n. 3, 159 S.E.2d at 625 n. 3. *215 For these reasons, the trial court did not err in refusing Villafana’s proposed instruction. 1 We affirm his convictions.

2006By doing so, the proposed instruction disordered the factfinding task of the jury—which when properly exercised—focuses on ‘Voluntariness only insofar as it affects the weight or credibility of the confession.” Mathews, 207 Va. at 918-19 , 153 S.E.2d at 240 (emphasis added); see also Wooden, 208 Va. at 631 n. 3, 159 S.E.2d at 625 n. 3. *215 For these reasons, the trial court did not err in refusing Villafana’s proposed instruction. 1 We affirm his convictions.

2006By doing so, the proposed instruction disordered the factfinding task of the jury—which when properly exercised—focuses on ‘Voluntariness only insofar as it affects the weight or credibility of the confession.” Mathews, 207 Va. at 918-19 , 153 S.E.2d at 240 (emphasis added); see also Wooden, 208 Va. at 631 n. 3, 159 S.E.2d at 625 n. 3. *215 For these reasons, the trial court did not err in refusing Villafana’s proposed instruction. 1 We affirm his convictions.

2004Moreover, the proffered instruction “must be supported by more than a mere scintilla of evidence.” Gibson v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 412, 417 , 219 S.E.2d 845, 849 (1975).

2004Moreover, the proffered instruction “must be supported by more than a mere scintilla of evidence.” Gibson v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 412, 417 , 219 S.E.2d 845, 849 (1975).

2004Hood’s Proffered Jury Instructions A. Standard of Review 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].’” 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)). “[M]ore than a scintilla of evidence is necessary to support a lesser-included offense instruction requested by the defenda

2004Hood’s Proffered Jury Instructions A. Standard of Review 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].’” 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)). “[M]ore than a scintilla of evidence is necessary to support a lesser-included offense instruction requested by the defenda

2003Id. at 498 , 229 S.E.2d at 885 ; see also Atkins v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 160, 178 , 510 S.E.2d 445, 456 (1999) (citing Pilot as grounds for finding the issue preserved for appeal where defense counsel consistently stated a preference for the form he submitted to the trial court).

2003Id. at 498 , 229 S.E.2d at 885 ; see also Atkins v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 160, 178 , 510 S.E.2d 445, 456 (1999) (citing Pilot as grounds for finding the issue preserved for appeal where defense counsel consistently stated a preference for the form he submitted to the trial court).