judge to possible error in Virginia

2023See Neal, 15 Va. App. at 422 (“This Court has said ‘[t]he primary function of Rule 5A:18 is to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals -8- and mistrials.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 530 (1992))).

2023The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is “to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.” Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 530 (1992) (en banc).

2024Additionally, appellant argues that the court erred by sustaining the Commonwealth’s objection during his closing argument and instructing the jury to disregard the quote, “[A]n accusation such as the one made here today, once made . . . .” This assignment of error is procedurally defaulted because appellant did not note an objection to the court’s ruling. - 20 - Under Rule 5A:18, “for an alleged error to be considered on appeal, the appellant must ‘alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid

2023See Neal, 15 Va. App. at 422 (“This Court has said ‘[t]he primary function of Rule 5A:18 is to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals -8- and mistrials.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 530 (1992))).

2017Specifically, the Commonwealth contends that contrary to appellant’s argument on appeal, “the thrust of [appellant’s] argument to the trial court was consistently that specific bad acts should come in to show . . . which person was the aggressor.” Under Rule 5A:18, “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling.” Importantly, “[t]he primary function of Rule 5A:18 is to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any cor

2017Specifically, the Commonwealth contends that contrary to appellant’s argument on appeal, “the thrust of [appellant’s] argument to the trial court was consistently that specific bad acts should come in to show . . . which person was the aggressor.” Under Rule 5A:18, “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling.” Importantly, “[t]he primary function of Rule 5A:18 is to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any cor

2023“In addition, a specific, contemporaneous objection gives the opposing party the opportunity to meet the objection at that stage of the proceeding.” Fountain v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 51, 56 (2014) (quoting Weidman v. Babcock, 241 Va. 40, 44 (1991)). 2 The argument sections of Lubertazzi’s opening and reply briefs also fail to mention the guidelines or the circuit court’s purported failure to explain its alleged departure in writing.

2019“In addition, a specific, contemporaneous objection gives the opposing party the opportunity to meet the objection at that stage of the proceeding.” Fountain v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 51, 56 (2014) (quoting Weidman v. Babcock, 241 Va. 40, 44 (1991)). “‘The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly’ and applies only in the extraordinary situation where a miscarriage of justice has occurred.” Holt v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 199, 209 (2016) (en banc) (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220-21 (1997)); accord Wandemberg v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 124, 137

2024“The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is ‘to 3 The jury also convicted Floyd of shooting into an occupied vehicle; however, that conviction is not before us. -4- alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” Id. (quoting Fountain v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 51, 56 (2014)).

2022Under Rule 5A:18, “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable this Court to attain the ends of justice.” “The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is ‘to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals -3- and mistrials.’” Merritt v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 452, 459 (2018) (quoting Fountain v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 5

2023Because appellant’s assignment of error addresses only the motion for a mistrial, we do not address the trial court’s ruling on the motion to set aside the verdict. - 12 - objection rule is to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.” Ludwig v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 1, 10 (2008).

2013“The main purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule ‘is to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrial.’” Ludwig v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 1, 10 , 660 S.E.2d 679, 683 (2008) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 530 , 414 S.E.2d 401, 404 (1992) (en banc)). “‘A specific, contemporaneous objection also provides the opposing party an opportunity to address an issue at a time when the course of the proceedings may be altered in respons

2022Rule 5A:18’s “ends of justice” exception “is a narrow one, which is to be used ‘sparingly when an error at trial is clear, substantial and material.’” Id. at 460 (quoting Masika v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 330, 333 (2014)). “[T]o bring an argument within the exception ‘a[n appellant] must affirmatively show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, not that a miscarriage might have occurred.’” Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 221 (1997)).

2019“In addition, a specific, contemporaneous objection gives the opposing party the opportunity to meet the objection at that stage of the proceeding.” Fountain v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 51, 56 (2014) (quoting Weidman v. Babcock, 241 Va. 40, 44 (1991)). “‘The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly’ and applies only in the extraordinary situation where a miscarriage of justice has occurred.” Holt v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 199, 209 (2016) (en banc) (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220-21 (1997)); accord Wandemberg v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 124, 137

2013“When objections are timely raised, ‘orderly and efficient justice’ may be accomplished, for ‘[e]rrors usually can be corrected in the trial court . . . without the necessity of appeal.’ Furthermore, when corrective action is timely made by the trial court, mistrials may also be avoided.” Perry v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 655, 667 , 712 S.E.2d 765, 771 (2011) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 126, 131 , 380 S.E.2d 8, 10 (1989)) (alteration in original). -5- From the record on appeal, we conclude that appellant’s counsel failed to timely object to the trial court’s communication with

2013“When objections are timely raised, ‘orderly and efficient justice’ may be accomplished, for ‘[e]rrors usually can be corrected in the trial court . . . without the necessity of appeal.’ Furthermore, when corrective action is timely made by the trial court, mistrials may also be avoided.” Perry v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 655, 667 , 712 S.E.2d 765, 771 (2011) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 126, 131 , 380 S.E.2d 8, 10 (1989)) (alteration in original). -5- From the record on appeal, we conclude that appellant’s counsel failed to timely object to the trial court’s communication with

2009See Ludwig v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 1, 10 , 660 S.E.2d 679, 683 (2008) (explaining that the “main purpose” of Rule 5A:18 is to “‘alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials’” (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 530 , 414 S.E.2d 401, 404 (1992) (en banc))); Parker v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 592, 595 , 421 S.E.2d 450, 452 (1992) (“An error is sufficiently preserved for consideration on appeal if a party[,] ‘at the time . . . the ru

2009See Ludwig v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 1, 10 , 660 S.E.2d 679, 683 (2008) (explaining that the “main purpose” of Rule 5A:18 is to “‘alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials’” (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 530 , 414 S.E.2d 401, 404 (1992) (en banc))); Parker v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 592, 595 , 421 S.E.2d 450, 452 (1992) (“An error is sufficiently preserved for consideration on appeal if a party[,] ‘at the time . . . the ru

2019“In addition, a specific, contemporaneous objection gives the opposing party the opportunity to meet the objection at that stage of the proceeding.” Fountain v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 51, 56 (2014) (quoting Weidman v. Babcock, 241 Va. 40, 44 (1991)). “‘The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly’ and applies only in the extraordinary situation where a miscarriage of justice has occurred.” Holt v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 199, 209 (2016) (en banc) (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220-21 (1997)); accord Wandemberg v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 124, 137

2019“In addition, a specific, contemporaneous objection gives the opposing party the opportunity to meet the objection at that stage of the proceeding.” Fountain v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 51, 56 (2014) (quoting Weidman v. Babcock, 241 Va. 40, 44 (1991)). “‘The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly’ and applies only in the extraordinary situation where a miscarriage of justice has occurred.” Holt v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 199, 209 (2016) (en banc) (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220-21 (1997)); accord Wandemberg v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 124, 137

2019“In addition, a specific, contemporaneous objection gives the opposing party the opportunity to meet the objection at that stage of the proceeding.” Fountain v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 51, 56 (2014) (quoting Weidman v. Babcock, 241 Va. 40, 44 (1991)). “‘The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly’ and applies only in the extraordinary situation where a miscarriage of justice has occurred.” Holt v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 199, 209 (2016) (en banc) (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220-21 (1997)); accord Wandemberg v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 124, 137

2019“In addition, a specific, contemporaneous objection gives the opposing party the opportunity to meet the objection at that stage of the proceeding.” Fountain v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 51, 56 (2014) (quoting Weidman v. Babcock, 241 Va. 40, 44 (1991)). “‘The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly’ and applies only in the extraordinary situation where a miscarriage of justice has occurred.” Holt v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 199, 209 (2016) (en banc) (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220-21 (1997)); accord Wandemberg v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 124, 137

2008A party “may meet the mandates of Rule 5A:18 in many ways.” Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 515 , 404 S.E.2d 736, 738 (1991) (en banc).

2008A party “may meet the mandates of Rule 5A:18 in many ways.” Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 515 , 404 S.E.2d 736, 738 (1991) (en banc).

2007“The primary function of the contemporaneous objection rule ‘is to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 547, 553 , 458 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1995) (en banc).

2007“The primary function of the contemporaneous objection rule ‘is to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 547, 553 , 458 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1995) (en banc).

2009See Robbins, 48 Va. App. at 485 , 632 S.E.2d at 624 . -6- The purpose behind Rule 5A:18 is to require parties “‘to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” Ludwig v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 1, 10 , 660 S.E.2d 679, 683 (2008) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 530 , 414 S.E.2d 401, 404 (1992) (en banc)).

2009See Robbins, 48 Va. App. at 485 , 632 S.E.2d at 624 . -6- The purpose behind Rule 5A:18 is to require parties “‘to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” Ludwig v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 1, 10 , 660 S.E.2d 679, 683 (2008) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 530 , 414 S.E.2d 401, 404 (1992) (en banc)).

2006Thus, “[u]nder this rule, a specific argument must be made to the trial court at the appropriate time, or the allegation of error will not be considered on appeal.” Edwards, -5- 41 Va. App. at 760 , 589 S.E.2d at 448 (citing Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 435 , 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987)).

2006Thus, “[u]nder this rule, a specific argument must be made to the trial court at the appropriate time, or the allegation of error will not be considered on appeal.” Edwards, -5- 41 Va. App. at 760 , 589 S.E.2d at 448 (citing Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 435 , 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987)).

1999See Rule 5A:18; Connelly v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 888, 891 , 420 S.E.2d 244, 246 (1992) ("A matter not in dispute before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal."); Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 530 , 414 S.E.2d 401, 404 (1992) ("The primary function of Rule 5A:18 is to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials."). - 8 -

1999See Rule 5A:18; Connelly v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 888, 891 , 420 S.E.2d 244, 246 (1992) ("A matter not in dispute before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal."); Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 530 , 414 S.E.2d 401, 404 (1992) ("The primary function of Rule 5A:18 is to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials."). - 8 -

1999“The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is to provide the trial court with the opportunity to remedy any error so that an appeal is not necessary.” Knight v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 207, 216 , 443 S.E.2d 165, 170 (1994). 3.

1999“The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is to provide the trial court with the opportunity to remedy any error so that an appeal is not necessary.” Knight v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 207, 216 , 443 S.E.2d 165, 170 (1994). 3.

2024“The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is ‘to 3 The jury also convicted Floyd of shooting into an occupied vehicle; however, that conviction is not before us. -4- alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” Id. (quoting Fountain v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 51, 56 (2014)).

2022Under Rule 5A:18, “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable this Court to attain the ends of justice.” “The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is ‘to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals -3- and mistrials.’” Merritt v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 452, 459 (2018) (quoting Fountain v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 5

2018Thus, “a specific argument must be made to the trial court at the appropriate time, or the allegation of error will not be considered on appeal.” Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 760 (2003) (en banc).

2006Thus, “[u]nder this rule, a specific argument must be made to the trial court at the appropriate time, or the allegation of error will not be considered on appeal.” Edwards, -5- 41 Va. App. at 760 , 589 S.E.2d at 448 (citing Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 435 , 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987)).

2023“Although Rule 5A:18 contains exceptions for good cause or to meet the ends of justice, [Clark] does not argue these exceptions and we will not invoke them sua sponte.” Williams v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 341, 347 (2010).

2022Warlick contends that the trial court erred in admitting the major violation report at his revocation hearing and in imposing a four-year sentence.1 We find no trial court error and affirm the judgment. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Under Rule 5A:18, objections must be both specific and timely “to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently.” McLean v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 322, 331 (1999) (quoting Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 416, 422 (1992)).

2022As for the text messages, while appellant now challenges the admission of this exhibit as irrelevant, lacking foundation, and prejudicial, at the bail hearing appellant only objected to their admission on the basis that they could be “misleading.” “In order to preserve an issue for appeal, ‘an objection must be timely made and the grounds stated with specificity.’” McDuffie v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 170, 177 (2006) (quoting Marlowe v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 619, 621 (1986)).

2022Rule 5A:18’s “ends of justice” exception “is a narrow one, which is to be used ‘sparingly when an error at trial is clear, substantial and material.’” Id. at 460 (quoting Masika v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 330, 333 (2014)). “[T]o bring an argument within the exception ‘a[n appellant] must affirmatively show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, not that a miscarriage might have occurred.’” Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 221 (1997)).

2022Rule 5A:18’s “ends of justice” exception “is a narrow one, which is to be used ‘sparingly when an error at trial is clear, substantial and material.’” Id. at 460 (quoting Masika v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 330, 333 (2014)). “[T]o bring an argument within the exception ‘a[n appellant] must affirmatively show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, not that a miscarriage might have occurred.’” Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 221 (1997)).

2022As for the text messages, while appellant now challenges the admission of this exhibit as irrelevant, lacking foundation, and prejudicial, at the bail hearing appellant only objected to their admission on the basis that they could be “misleading.” “In order to preserve an issue for appeal, ‘an objection must be timely made and the grounds stated with specificity.’” McDuffie v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 170, 177 (2006) (quoting Marlowe v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 619, 621 (1986)).

2020Appellate courts “will not permit the defendant’s counsel to withdraw questions and then, on appeal, assign error to the circuit court’s ruling on objections to the questions that he voluntarily withdrew.” Lenz v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 451, 464 (2001).

2020Nelson is “assign[ing] error to the circuit court’s ruling on [an] objection[] to [a] question[] that [s]he voluntarily withdrew.” Lenz, 261 Va. at 464 .

2018“The primary purpose of requiring an argument to be made to a trial court is ‘to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” White v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 599, 604 , 798 S.E.2d 818, 820 (2017) (quoting Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 416, 422 , 425 S.E.2d 521, 525 (1992)).

2018“The primary purpose of requiring an argument to be made to a trial court is ‘to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” White v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 599, 604 , 798 S.E.2d 818, 820 (2017) (quoting Neal v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 416, 422 , 425 S.E.2d 521, 525 (1992)).

2016See Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 530 , 414 S.E.2d 401, 404 (1992) (“The primary function of Rule 5A:18 is to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.”); Gardner v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 418, 423 , 350 S.E.2d 229, 232 (1986) (observing that Rule 5A:18 “places the parties on notice that they must give the trial court the first opportunity to rule on disputed evidentiary and procedural questions”).

2013“The main purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule ‘is to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrial.’” Ludwig v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 1, 10 , 660 S.E.2d 679, 683 (2008) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 530 , 414 S.E.2d 401, 404 (1992) (en banc)). “‘A specific, contemporaneous objection also provides the opposing party an opportunity to address an issue at a time when the course of the proceedings may be altered in respons

2013“The main purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule ‘is to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrial.’” Ludwig v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 1, 10 , 660 S.E.2d 679, 683 (2008) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 530 , 414 S.E.2d 401, 404 (1992) (en banc)). “‘A specific, contemporaneous objection also provides the opposing party an opportunity to address an issue at a time when the course of the proceedings may be altered in respons

2013“When objections are timely raised, ‘orderly and efficient justice’ may be accomplished, for ‘[e]rrors usually can be corrected in the trial court . . . without the necessity of appeal.’ Furthermore, when corrective action is timely made by the trial court, mistrials may also be avoided.” Perry v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 655, 667 , 712 S.E.2d 765, 771 (2011) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 126, 131 , 380 S.E.2d 8, 10 (1989)) (alteration in original). -5- From the record on appeal, we conclude that appellant’s counsel failed to timely object to the trial court’s communication with

2013“When objections are timely raised, ‘orderly and efficient justice’ may be accomplished, for ‘[e]rrors usually can be corrected in the trial court . . . without the necessity of appeal.’ Furthermore, when corrective action is timely made by the trial court, mistrials may also be avoided.” Perry v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 655, 667 , 712 S.E.2d 765, 771 (2011) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 126, 131 , 380 S.E.2d 8, 10 (1989)) (alteration in original). -5- From the record on appeal, we conclude that appellant’s counsel failed to timely object to the trial court’s communication with