showing of manifest error in Virginia

2026A juror’s “motives for concealing information may vary, but only those reasons that affect a juror’s impartiality can truly be said to affect the fairness of a trial.” Id. (quoting Taylor, 25 Va. App. at 18 ). “[W]e will disturb the trial court’s decision regarding juror impartiality ‘only upon a showing of manifest error.’” Id. at 427 (quoting Weeks v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 460, 475 (1994)).

2022Therefore, a trial court’s finding with respect to juror impartiality will be reversed “only upon a showing of manifest error.” Blevins, 267 Va. at 297 (citing Weeks v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 460, 475 (1994)); see Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 396 (2010) (“A trial court’s finding of impartiality may be overturned only for manifest error.”); Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 125 , 136 (2019) (“Juror impartiality is a question of fact [which] must be affirmed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.”).

2008Indus., 246 Va. at 475 , 436 S.E.2d at 444 )); City of Richmond v. Gordon, 224 Va. 103 , 110, 294 S.E.2d 846 , 850 (1982) ("The taxpayer must show `manifest error in the manner of making the estimate, or that evidence which should be controlling has been disregarded.'" (quoting Snyder, 161 Va. at 293 , 170 S.E. at 723 )); Tuckahoe Woman's Club v. City of Richmond, 199 Va. 734 , 739-40, 101 S.E.2d 571 , 575 (1958) (holding that the assessment will not be disturbed "`unless it appears that there has been a manifest error in the manner of making the estimate, or that evidence which should be cont

2008Indus., 246 Va. at 475 , 436 S.E.2d at 444 )); City of Richmond v. Gordon, 224 Va. 103 , 110, 294 S.E.2d 846 , 850 (1982) ("The taxpayer must show `manifest error in the manner of making the estimate, or that evidence which should be controlling has been disregarded.'" (quoting Snyder, 161 Va. at 293 , 170 S.E. at 723 )); Tuckahoe Woman's Club v. City of Richmond, 199 Va. 734 , 739-40, 101 S.E.2d 571 , 575 (1958) (holding that the assessment will not be disturbed "`unless it appears that there has been a manifest error in the manner of making the estimate, or that evidence which should be cont

2007“Accordingly, we will disturb the trial court’s decision regarding juror impartiality ‘only upon a showing of manifest error.’” Id. (quoting Weeks v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 460, 475 , 450 S.E.2d 379, 389 (1994)).

1995"Upon appellate review, we must give deference to the trial court's decision whether to exclude or retain a prospective juror because the trial court 'sees and hears the juror;' accordingly, the trial court's decision will be disturbed only upon a showing of manifest error." Weeks v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 460, 475 , 450 S.E.2d 379, 389 (1994) (quoting Eaton v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 236, 246 , 397 S.E.2d 385, 391 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 824 (1991)).

1999“A clear presumption favors the validity of the assessment and that presumption can be rebutted only upon a showing of manifest error or total disregard of controlling evidence.” Donatelli, 228 Va. at 627 ; Arlington County Board v. Ginsburg, 228 Va. 633, 640 (1985).

1999As previously mentioned: “A clear presumption favors the validity of the assessment and that presumption can be rebutted only upon a showing of manifest error or total disregard of controlling evidence.” Donatelli, 228 Va. at 62 ; Arlington County Board v. Ginsburg, 228 Va. 633, 640 (1985).

2017“A trial court’s decision on this issue will be affirmed absent a showing of manifest error.” Vinson v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 459, 467 , 522 S.E.2d 170, 176 (1999).

2017“A trial court’s decision on this issue will be affirmed absent a showing of manifest error.” Vinson v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 459, 467 , 522 S.E.2d 170, 176 (1999).

1998See, generally, Board of Supv’rs v. Telecommunications Indus., Inc., 246 Va. 472 , 436 S.E.2d 442 (1993) (the validity of an assessment may be rebutted by a showing of manifest error or total disregard of controlling evidence); City of Richmond v. Chesterfield Apartment Co., 206 Va. 22 , 141 S.E.2d 703 (1965) (party appealing a Board of Review decision has the burden of showing that the assessments, as determined by the Board of Review, are erroneous); Arlington County Bd. v. Ginsberg, 228 Va. 633 , 325 S.E.2d 348 (1985) (trial court is not bound by the values argued by the parties or those fi

1998See, generally, Board of Supv’rs v. Telecommunications Indus., Inc., 246 Va. 472 , 436 S.E.2d 442 (1993) (the validity of an assessment may be rebutted by a showing of manifest error or total disregard of controlling evidence); City of Richmond v. Chesterfield Apartment Co., 206 Va. 22 , 141 S.E.2d 703 (1965) (party appealing a Board of Review decision has the burden of showing that the assessments, as determined by the Board of Review, are erroneous); Arlington County Bd. v. Ginsberg, 228 Va. 633 , 325 S.E.2d 348 (1985) (trial court is not bound by the values argued by the parties or those fi

1995"Deference to trial court findings . . . makes particular sense in this context because evaluation of the prosecutor's state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies peculiarly within a trial judge's province." Barksdale, 17 Va. App. at 460 , 438 S.E.2d at 764 (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 365 (1991) (citation omitted)). "[W]e consistently have given deference to a trial court's findings during jury voir dire, and will not disturb those findings absent a showing of manifest error or abuse of discretion." Faison v. Hudson, 243 Va. 397, 402 , 417 S.E.2d 305, 308 (1992).

1995"Deference to trial court findings . . . makes particular sense in this context because evaluation of the prosecutor's state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies peculiarly within a trial judge's province." Barksdale, 17 Va. App. at 460 , 438 S.E.2d at 764 (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 365 (1991) (citation omitted)). "[W]e consistently have given deference to a trial court's findings during jury voir dire, and will not disturb those findings absent a showing of manifest error or abuse of discretion." Faison v. Hudson, 243 Va. 397, 402 , 417 S.E.2d 305, 308 (1992).

2011Co. v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 210, 214 , 176 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1970), county tax assessments, in the absence of “a showing of manifest error or total disregard of controlling evidence,” are presumptively valid, Smith v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, 234 Va. 250, 257 , 361 S.E.2d 351, 355 (1987).

2011Co. v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 210, 214 , 176 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1970), county tax assessments, in the absence of “a showing of manifest error or total disregard of controlling evidence,” are presumptively valid, Smith v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, 234 Va. 250, 257 , 361 S.E.2d 351, 355 (1987).

2011Co. v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 210, 214 , 176 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1970), county tax assessments, in the absence of “a showing of manifest error or total disregard of controlling evidence,” are presumptively valid, Smith v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, 234 Va. 250, 257 , 361 S.E.2d 351, 355 (1987).

2011Co. v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 210, 214 , 176 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1970), county tax assessments, in the absence of “a showing of manifest error or total disregard of controlling evidence,” are presumptively valid, Smith v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, 234 Va. 250, 257 , 361 S.E.2d 351, 355 (1987).

2004Stewart v. Commonwealth, 245 Va. 222, 234 , 427 S.E.2d 394, 402 (1993).

2004Stewart v. Commonwealth, 245 Va. 222, 234 , 427 S.E.2d 394, 402 (1993).

1996Eaton v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 236, 246 , 397 S.E.2d 385, 391 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 824 (1991) (quoting Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 426 (1985)).

1995Eaton v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 236 , *387 246, 397 S.E.2d 385, 391 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 824 (1991) (quoting Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 426 (1985)); Bennett v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 448, 469 , 374 S.E.2d 303, 316 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1028 (1989).

1999“A clear presumption favors the validity of the assessment and that presumption can be rebutted only upon a showing of manifest error or total disregard of controlling evidence.” Donatelli, 228 Va. at 627 ; Arlington County Board v. Ginsburg, 228 Va. 633, 640 (1985).

1999As previously mentioned: “A clear presumption favors the validity of the assessment and that presumption can be rebutted only upon a showing of manifest error or total disregard of controlling evidence.” Donatelli, 228 Va. at 62 ; Arlington County Board v. Ginsburg, 228 Va. 633, 640 (1985).

1995Richmond v. Gordon, 224 Va. 103, 110 , 294 S.E.2d 846, 850 (1982); Viscose Corp. v. Roanoke, 205 Va. 192, 194-95 , 135 S.E.2d 795, 797-98 (1964).

1995Richmond v. Gordon, 224 Va. 103, 110 , 294 S.E.2d 846, 850 (1982); Viscose Corp. v. Roanoke, 205 Va. 192, 194-95 , 135 S.E.2d 795, 797-98 (1964).

2022Therefore, a trial court’s finding with respect to juror impartiality will be reversed “only upon a showing of manifest error.” Blevins, 267 Va. at 297 (citing Weeks v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 460, 475 (1994)); see Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 396 (2010) (“A trial court’s finding of impartiality may be overturned only for manifest error.”); Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 125 , 136 (2019) (“Juror impartiality is a question of fact [which] must be affirmed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.”).

2010Blevins v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 291, 297 , 590 S.E.2d 365, 369 (2004) (quoting Weeks v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 460, 475 , 450 S.E.2d 379, 389 (1994)).

1992See, e.g., Stockton v. Commonwealth, 241 Va. 192, 200 , 402 S.E.2d 196, 206 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 280 , 116 L.Ed.2d 231 (1991); Eaton v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 236, 246 , 397 S.E.2d 385, 391 (1990); Spencer v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 563, 572 , 385 S.E.2d 850, 855 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1093 , 110 S.Ct. 1171 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1990); Mackall v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 240, 252 , 372 S.E.2d 759, 767 (1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 925 , 109 S.Ct. 3261 , 106 L.Ed.2d 607 (1989).

1992See, e.g., Stockton v. Commonwealth, 241 Va. 192, 200 , 402 S.E.2d 196, 206 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 280 , 116 L.Ed.2d 231 (1991); Eaton v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 236, 246 , 397 S.E.2d 385, 391 (1990); Spencer v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 563, 572 , 385 S.E.2d 850, 855 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1093 , 110 S.Ct. 1171 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1990); Mackall v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 240, 252 , 372 S.E.2d 759, 767 (1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 925 , 109 S.Ct. 3261 , 106 L.Ed.2d 607 (1989).

2022Therefore, a trial court’s finding with respect to juror impartiality will be reversed “only upon a showing of manifest error.” Blevins, 267 Va. at 297 (citing Weeks v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 460, 475 (1994)); see Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 396 (2010) (“A trial court’s finding of impartiality may be overturned only for manifest error.”); Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 125 , 136 (2019) (“Juror impartiality is a question of fact [which] must be affirmed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.”).

2009In determining whether a juror is impartial, we consider “the juror’s entire voir dire, not merely isolated statements.” Lovitt v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 497, 510 , 537 S.E.2d 866, 875 (2000).

2009In determining whether a juror is impartial, we consider “the juror’s entire voir dire, not merely isolated statements.” Lovitt v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 497, 510 , 537 S.E.2d 866, 875 (2000).

2008“Absent a showing of manifest error, we will affirm a trial court’s decision to exclude or retain a juror.” Morrisette v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 386, 396 , 569 S.E.2d 47, 54 (2002).

2008“Absent a showing of manifest error, we will affirm a trial court’s decision to exclude or retain a juror.” Morrisette v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 386, 396 , 569 S.E.2d 47, 54 (2002).

2008See, e.g., Tidewater Psychiatric Inst., 256 Va. at 141 , 501 S.E.2d at 764 (deciding whether the trial court correctly determined that the taxpayer failed to rebut the presumption of correctness by "`a showing of manifest error or total disregard of controlling evidence' in the [taxing authority's] method of determining the fair market value of the property" (quoting Telecomm.

2008See, e.g., Tidewater Psychiatric Inst., 256 Va. at 141 , 501 S.E.2d at 764 (deciding whether the trial court correctly determined that the taxpayer failed to rebut the presumption of correctness by "`a showing of manifest error or total disregard of controlling evidence' in the [taxing authority's] method of determining the fair market value of the property" (quoting Telecomm.

2002Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 428 (1991); Vinson v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 459, 467 , 522 S.E.2d 170, 176 (1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1218 (2000).

1999Courts shall be reluctant, within reasonable bounds, to change assessor’s judgments because courts are not duly constituted tax authorities.” Board of Supervisors v. Leasco Realty, Inc., 221 Va. 158, 165 (1980).