federal constitutional error in Virginia

2024See Commonwealth v. Swann, 290 Va. 194, 196 (2015) (“The doctrine of judicial restraint dictates that we decide cases ‘on the best and narrowest grounds available.’” (quoting McGhee v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 620 , 626 n.4 (2010))). “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt . . . .” Lilly v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548, 551 (1999) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)).

2022Assuming without deciding that the admission of appellant’s incriminating statements was error, their admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt . . . .” Lilly v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548, 551 (1999) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)).

2024See Commonwealth v. Swann, 290 Va. 194, 196 (2015) (“The doctrine of judicial restraint dictates that we decide cases ‘on the best and narrowest grounds available.’” (quoting McGhee v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 620 , 626 n.4 (2010))). “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt . . . .” Lilly v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548, 551 (1999) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)).

2022Assuming without deciding that the admission of appellant’s incriminating statements was error, their admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt . . . .” Lilly v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548, 551 (1999) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)).

2024“When a federal constitutional error is involved, a reviewing court must reverse the judgment unless it determines that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253, 259 (2001); see also Crawford v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 84, 101 (2011). 8 Typically, non-constitutional harmless error review would apply here because the trial court exercised discretion in excluding evidence at sentencing on the ground it was irrelevant; however, in this case, Childress argues the trial court excluded evidence that raised a constitutional challenge.

2017“When a federal constitutional error is involved, a reviewing court must reverse the judgment unless it determines that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253, 259 , 546 S.E.2d 728, 731 (2001).

2019“When a federal constitutional error is involved, a reversal is required unless the reviewing court determines that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Pitt v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 692, 695 (2000); see also Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 420 (2017).

2019“When a federal constitutional error is involved, a reversal is required unless the reviewing court determines that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Pitt, 260 Va. at 695 .

2010Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 686 (1986). “ ‘[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt;’ otherwise the conviction under review must be set aside.” Lilly v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548, 551 , 523 S.E.2d 208, 209 (1999) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11 (1967)). “[Ojur analysis turns not on the evidence excluded ... but on the evidence in the record, viz., [the witness’] testimo

2010Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 686 (1986). “ ‘[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt;’ otherwise the conviction under review must be set aside.” Lilly v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548, 551 , 523 S.E.2d 208, 209 (1999) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11 (1967)). “[Ojur analysis turns not on the evidence excluded ... but on the evidence in the record, viz., [the witness’] testimo

2016“A federal constitutional error is harmless, and thus excusable, only if it appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” Quinn v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 702, 719 , 492 S.E.2d 470, 479 (1997) (quoting Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 ).

2016“A federal constitutional error is harmless, and thus excusable, only if it appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” Quinn v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 702, 719 , 492 S.E.2d 470, 479 (1997) (quoting Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 ).

2010Important factors in this analysis are “the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684 , 106 S.Ct. at 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d at 686-87 . “ ‘[H]armless error analysis ... [is not] simply a sufficiency of the evidence analysis.’ ” Williams v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 395, 400 , 528 S.E

2010Important factors in this analysis are “the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684 , 106 S.Ct. at 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d at 686-87 . “ ‘[H]armless error analysis ... [is not] simply a sufficiency of the evidence analysis.’ ” Williams v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 395, 400 , 528 S.E

2009ANALYSIS “When a federal constitutional error is involved, a reviewing court must reverse the judgment unless it determines that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253, 259 , 546 S.E.2d 728, 731 (2001). “‘We decide whether the erroneous admission of evidence was sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal on the basis of our own reading of the record and on what seems to us to have been the probable impact on the * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. fact finder.’” Corado v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 315, 32

2009ANALYSIS “When a federal constitutional error is involved, a reviewing court must reverse the judgment unless it determines that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253, 259 , 546 S.E.2d 728, 731 (2001). “‘We decide whether the erroneous admission of evidence was sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal on the basis of our own reading of the record and on what seems to us to have been the probable impact on the * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. fact finder.’” Corado v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 315, 32

2009ANALYSIS “When a federal constitutional error is involved, a reviewing court must reverse the judgment unless it determines that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253, 259 , 546 S.E.2d 728, 731 (2001). “‘We decide whether the erroneous admission of evidence was sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal on the basis of our own reading of the record and on what seems to us to have been the probable impact on the * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. fact finder.’” Corado v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 315, 32

2009ANALYSIS “When a federal constitutional error is involved, a reviewing court must reverse the judgment unless it determines that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253, 259 , 546 S.E.2d 728, 731 (2001). “‘We decide whether the erroneous admission of evidence was sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal on the basis of our own reading of the record and on what seems to us to have been the probable impact on the * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. fact finder.’” Corado v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 315, 32

1997A federal constitutional error is harmless, and thus excusable, only if it appears “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-28 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see also Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 296 , 111 S.Ct. at 1257 (applying Chapman test to erroneously admitted confession); Lavinder v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 1003, 1005 , 407 S.E.2d 910, 911 (1991).

1997A federal constitutional error is harmless, and thus excusable, only if it appears “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-28 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see also Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 296 , 111 S.Ct. at 1257 (applying Chapman test to erroneously admitted confession); Lavinder v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 1003, 1005 , 407 S.E.2d 910, 911 (1991).

2006“When a trial court admits evidence in violation of the United States Constitution, the court’s error is a constitutional one.” “Before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” “We decide whether the erroneous admission of evidence was sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal on the basis of our own reading of the record and on what seems to us to have been the probable impact on the fact finder.” Id. at 323 , 623 S.E.2d at 456 (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 30 Va.App. 378, 383 , 517

2006“When a trial court admits evidence in violation of the United States Constitution, the court’s error is a constitutional one.” “Before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” “We decide whether the erroneous admission of evidence was sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal on the basis of our own reading of the record and on what seems to us to have been the probable impact on the fact finder.” Id. at 323 , 623 S.E.2d at 456 (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 30 Va.App. 378, 383 , 517

2015Thus, a constitutional error is reversible error if “ ‘there is a reasonable possibility that the [error] complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’ ” Id. (quoting Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 , 84 S.Ct. 229, 230 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963)); see also Crawford v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 84, 101 , 704 S.E.2d 107, 117 (2011) (explaining that “ ‘[t]he correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the [error] were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall

1973The court reversed, but in doing so said: “We conclude that there may be some constitutional errors which in the setting of a particular case are so unimportant and insignificant that they may, consistent with the Federal Constitution, be deemed harmless, not requiring the automatic reversal of the conviction.” 386 U. S. at 22 . if w if ♦ “We, therefore, do no more than adhere to the meaning of our Fahy [Fahy v. State of Connecticut, 375 U. S. 85 ] case when we hold, as we now do, that before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that i

2009The Supreme Court, in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , [828,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), held that “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” As the Supreme Court stated in Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , [1436,] 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986), “an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” See Neder v. U

2009The Supreme Court, in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , [828,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), held that “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” As the Supreme Court stated in Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , [1436,] 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986), “an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” See Neder v. U

2005“Before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).

2000“When a trial court admits evidence in violation of the United States Constitution, the court’s error is a constitutional one.” Williams v. Commonwealth, 30 Va.App. 378, 383 , 517 S.E.2d 246, 249 (1999) (citing Jenkins v. Commonwealth, 254 Va. 333, 336 , 492 S.E.2d 131, 132 (1997)). “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).

2024“When a federal constitutional error is involved, a reviewing court must reverse the judgment unless it determines that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253, 259 (2001); see also Crawford v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 84, 101 (2011). 8 Typically, non-constitutional harmless error review would apply here because the trial court exercised discretion in excluding evidence at sentencing on the ground it was irrelevant; however, in this case, Childress argues the trial court excluded evidence that raised a constitutional challenge.

2015Thus, a constitutional error is reversible error if “ ‘there is a reasonable possibility that the [error] complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’ ” Id. (quoting Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 , 84 S.Ct. 229, 230 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963)); see also Crawford v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 84, 101 , 704 S.E.2d 107, 117 (2011) (explaining that “ ‘[t]he correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the [error] were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall

2010Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 686 (1986). “ ‘[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt;’ otherwise the conviction under review must be set aside.” Lilly v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548, 551 , 523 S.E.2d 208, 209 (1999) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11 (1967)). “[Ojur analysis turns not on the evidence excluded ... but on the evidence in the record, viz., [the witness’] testimo

2010Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 686 (1986). “ ‘[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt;’ otherwise the conviction under review must be set aside.” Lilly v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548, 551 , 523 S.E.2d 208, 209 (1999) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11 (1967)). “[Ojur analysis turns not on the evidence excluded ... but on the evidence in the record, viz., [the witness’] testimo

2010Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 686 (1986). “ ‘[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt;’ otherwise the conviction under review must be set aside.” Lilly v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548, 551 , 523 S.E.2d 208, 209 (1999) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11 (1967)). “[Ojur analysis turns not on the evidence excluded ... but on the evidence in the record, viz., [the witness’] testimo

2010Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 686 (1986). “ ‘[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt;’ otherwise the conviction under review must be set aside.” Lilly v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548, 551 , 523 S.E.2d 208, 209 (1999) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11 (1967)). “[Ojur analysis turns not on the evidence excluded ... but on the evidence in the record, viz., [the witness’] testimo

2011Stevens v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 481, 486 , 634 S.E.2d 305, 308 (2006).

2011Stevens v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 481, 486 , 634 S.E.2d 305, 308 (2006).

2000See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 306-10 (1991) (applying harmless error standard to erroneously admitted confession); Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 372-73 (1972). "[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967).

1997A federal constitutional error is harmless, and thus excusable, only if it appears “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-28 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see also Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 296 , 111 S.Ct. at 1257 (applying Chapman test to erroneously admitted confession); Lavinder v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 1003, 1005 , 407 S.E.2d 910, 911 (1991).

1991See Reid v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 790 , 195 S.E.2d 866 (1973).

1991See Reid v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 790 , 195 S.E.2d 866 (1973).

2016The reviewing court must determine “‘whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’” In making that determination, the court must consider, among other factors, “[1] the importance of the tainted evidence in the prosecution’s case, [2] whether that evidence was cumulative, [3] the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the tainted evidence on material points, and [4] the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Pitt v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 692, 695 , 539 S.E.2d 77, 78 (2000) (numbering added) (fi

2016The reviewing court must determine “‘whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’” In making that determination, the court must consider, among other factors, “[1] the importance of the tainted evidence in the prosecution’s case, [2] whether that evidence was cumulative, [3] the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the tainted evidence on material points, and [4] the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Pitt v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 692, 695 , 539 S.E.2d 77, 78 (2000) (numbering added) (fi

2000"Confrontation Clause error is a federal constitutional error subject to harmless error analysis." Id. at 387 , 523 S.E.2d at 541 .

2000"Confrontation Clause error is a federal constitutional error subject to harmless error analysis." Id. at 387 , 523 S.E.2d at 541 .

2026Because “‘no fixed or immutable signs . . . indicate the need for further inquiry to determine fitness to proceed,’” the decision to order a competency evaluation is “factually intensive.” Johnson, 53 Va. App. at 92 (quoting Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 180 (1975)).

2024See Commonwealth v. Swann, 290 Va. 194, 196 (2015) (“The doctrine of judicial restraint dictates that we decide cases ‘on the best and narrowest grounds available.’” (quoting McGhee v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 620 , 626 n.4 (2010))). “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt . . . .” Lilly v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548, 551 (1999) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)).

2024See Commonwealth v. Swann, 290 Va. 194, 196 (2015) (“The doctrine of judicial restraint dictates that we decide cases ‘on the best and narrowest grounds available.’” (quoting McGhee v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 620 , 626 n.4 (2010))). “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt . . . .” Lilly v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548, 551 (1999) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)).

2022Finally, to the extent that appellant’s allegations constitute arguments of fraud, those allegations, too, are not proper in a motion to vacate. “‘[E]xtrinsic fraud’ consists of ‘conduct which prevents a fair submission of the controversy to the court’ and, therefore, renders the results of the proceedings null and void.” Peet v. Peet, 16 Va. App. 323, 327 (1993) (quoting -5- Jones v. Willard, 224 Va. 602, 607 (1983)).

2022Finally, to the extent that appellant’s allegations constitute arguments of fraud, those allegations, too, are not proper in a motion to vacate. “‘[E]xtrinsic fraud’ consists of ‘conduct which prevents a fair submission of the controversy to the court’ and, therefore, renders the results of the proceedings null and void.” Peet v. Peet, 16 Va. App. 323, 327 (1993) (quoting -5- Jones v. Willard, 224 Va. 602, 607 (1983)).