effect of the asserted error in Virginia

2026See Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437 (2010) (“To satisfy [Rule 5A:18], ‘an objection must be made . . . at a point in the proceeding when the trial -4- court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” (second alteration in original) (quoting Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 (2002))).

2026See Scialdone, 279 Va. at 437 (“To satisfy [Rule 5A:18], ‘an objection must be made . . . at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position . . . to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” (second alteration in original) (quoting Johnson, 264 Va. at 33 )). - 23 - proper award of counsel fees [is] reasonableness under all of the circumstances revealed by the record.” Conley v. Bonasera, 72 Va. App. 337 , 350 (2020) (alterations in original) (quoting McGinnis v. McGinnis, 1 Va. App. 272, 277 (1985)).

2019See Scialdone v. Commonwealth , 279 Va. 422 , 437, 689 S.E.2d 716 (2010) (explaining that a specific, contemporaneous objection "must be made at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error" and that "a specific, contemporaneous objection gives the opposing party the opportunity to meet the objection at that stage of the proceeding " (emphases added) (alteration and citations omitted)).

2017We have repeatedly held that in order to preserve an issue for appeal a party must make known to the trial court the action which he desires the court to take or his objections to the actions and the grounds therefore "at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error." Scialdone v. Commonwealth , 279 Va. 422 , 437, 689 S.E.2d 716 , 724 (2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted); Maxwell v. Commonwealth , 287 Va. 258 , 267-68, 754 S.E.2d 516 , 520-21 (2014) (holding failure to make

2017Rule 5:25 exists ‘“to protect the trial court from appeals based upon undisclosed grounds, to prevent the setting of traps on appeal, to enable the trial judge to rule intelligently, and to avoid unnecessary reversals and mistrials.’” Reid v. Boyle, 259 Va. 356, 372 , 527 S.E.2d 137, 146 (2000) (quoting Fisher v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 403, 414 , 374 S.E.2d 46, 52 (1988)).

2017Rule 5:25 exists ‘“to protect the trial court from appeals based upon undisclosed grounds, to prevent the setting of traps on appeal, to enable the trial judge to rule intelligently, and to avoid unnecessary reversals and mistrials.’” Reid v. Boyle, 259 Va. 356, 372 , 527 S.E.2d 137, 146 (2000) (quoting Fisher v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 403, 414 , 374 S.E.2d 46, 52 (1988)).

2017Rule 5:25 exists ‘“to protect the trial court from appeals based upon undisclosed grounds, to prevent the setting of traps on appeal, to enable the trial judge to rule intelligently, and to avoid unnecessary reversals and mistrials.’” Reid v. Boyle, 259 Va. 356, 372 , 527 S.E.2d 137, 146 (2000) (quoting Fisher v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 403, 414 , 374 S.E.2d 46, 52 (1988)).

2017Rule 5:25 exists ‘“to protect the trial court from appeals based upon undisclosed grounds, to prevent the setting of traps on appeal, to enable the trial judge to rule intelligently, and to avoid unnecessary reversals and mistrials.’” Reid v. Boyle, 259 Va. 356, 372 , 527 S.E.2d 137, 146 (2000) (quoting Fisher v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 403, 414 , 374 S.E.2d 46, 52 (1988)).

2025See Rule 5A:18 (providing that “[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”); Commonwealth v. Bass, 292 Va. 19, 26 (2016) (“The rule requires litigants to make their objections ‘at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” (quoting Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437 (2010))); Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 258 , 265 (2014) (noting that “[f]or the

2025Rule 5A:18 requires litigants to make their objections “at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.” Commonwealth v. Bass, 292 Va. 19, 26 (2016) (quoting Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437 (2010)).

2025See Rule 5A:18 (providing that “[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”); Commonwealth v. Bass, 292 Va. 19, 26 (2016) (“The rule requires litigants to make their objections ‘at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” (quoting Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437 (2010))); Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 258 , 265 (2014) (noting that “[f]or the

2014“For an objection to meet the requirements of Rule 5A:18, it must also ‘be made . . . at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” Id. (quoting Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437, 689 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2010)).

2011Put another way, “[t]o satisfy the rule, ‘an objection must be made . . . at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437, 689 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2010) (quoting Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 , 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002)). “[T]he main purpose of the rule is to ensure the trial court can ‘consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” Kovalaske, 56

2011Put another way, “[t]o satisfy the rule, ‘an objection must be made . . . at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437, 689 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2010) (quoting Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 , 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002)). “[T]he main purpose of the rule is to ensure the trial court can ‘consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” Kovalaske, 56

2023Neither an appellant nor an appellate court should “put a different twist on a question that is at odds with the question presented to the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Shifflett, 257 Va. 34, 44 (1999); see Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437 (2010) (explaining that “a specific, contemporaneous objection gives the opposing party the opportunity to meet the objection” “at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error”); Clifford v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 23, 25 (2007) (“[A]n

2023Neither an appellant nor an appellate court should “put a different twist on a question that is at odds with the question presented to the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Shifflett, 257 Va. 34, 44 (1999); see Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437 (2010) (explaining that “a specific, contemporaneous objection gives the opposing party the opportunity to meet the objection” “at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error”); Clifford v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 23, 25 (2007) (“[A]n

2023Neither an appellant nor an appellate court should “put a different twist on a question that is at odds with the question presented to the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Shifflett, 257 Va. 34, 44 (1999); see Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437 (2010) (explaining that “a specific, contemporaneous objection gives the opposing party the opportunity to meet the objection” “at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error”); Clifford v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 23, 25 (2007) (“[A]n

2023Neither an appellant nor an appellate court should “put a different twist on a question that is at odds with the question presented to the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Shifflett, 257 Va. 34, 44 (1999); see Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437 (2010) (explaining that “a specific, contemporaneous objection gives the opposing party the opportunity to meet the objection” “at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error”); Clifford v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 23, 25 (2007) (“[A]n

2016“If a party fails to make a timely objection, the objection is waived for purposes of appeal.” Murillo-Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 64, 79 , 688 S.E.2d 199, 207-08 (2010) (quoting Shelton v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 121, 126 , 645 S.E.2d 914, 916 (2007)).

2016“If a party fails to make a timely objection, the objection is waived for purposes of appeal.” Murillo-Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 64, 79 , 688 S.E.2d 199, 207-08 (2010) (quoting Shelton v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 121, 126 , 645 S.E.2d 914, 916 (2007)).

2016“If a party fails to make a timely objection, the objection is waived for purposes of appeal.” Murillo-Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 64, 79 , 688 S.E.2d 199, 207-08 (2010) (quoting Shelton v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 121, 126 , 645 S.E.2d 914, 916 (2007)).

2016“If a party fails to make a timely objection, the objection is waived for purposes of appeal.” Murillo-Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 64, 79 , 688 S.E.2d 199, 207-08 (2010) (quoting Shelton v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 121, 126 , 645 S.E.2d 914, 916 (2007)).

2012Reid v. Baumgardner, 217 Va. 769, 773 , 232 S.E.2d 778, 781 (1977).

2012Reid v. Baumgardner, 217 Va. 769, 773 , 232 S.E.2d 778, 781 (1977).

2021If the trial court is not given an opportunity to address the issue, then “there is no ruling by the trial court on the issue, and thus no basis for review or action by this Court on appeal.” Riverside Hosp., Inc. v. Johnson, 272 Va. 518, 526 (2006).

2010The trial court's having had the opportunity to address the defendants' arguments, and then in fact ruling on them, provides a "basis for review ... by this Court on appeal." See Riverside, 272 Va. at 526 , 636 S.E.2d at 420 .

2020“To satisfy the rule, ‘an objection must be made . . . at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437 (2010) (quoting Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 22 (2002)). “[T]his Court has consistently focused on whether the trial court had the opportunity to rule intelligently on the assigned error.” Brandon v. Cox, 284 Va. 251, 255 (2012) (citing Scialdone, 279 Va. at 437 ).

2014“To satisfy the rule, ‘an objection must be made . . . at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437, 689 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2010) (quoting Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 , 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002)). “[T]his Court has consistently focused on whether the trial court had the opportunity to rule intelligently on the assigned error.” Brandon v. Cox, 284 Va. 251, 255 , 736 S.E.2d 695 , 696 (2012) (citing Scialdone, 279 Va. at 437, 6

2016The rule strives to ensure "the trial court has an opportunity to rule intelligently on the issues presented, thus avoiding unnecessary appeals and reversals." Brown v. Commonwealth , 279 Va. 210 , 217, 688 S.E.2d 185 , 188 (2010).

2016The rule strives to ensure “the trial court has an opportunity to rule intelligently on the issues presented, thus avoiding unnecessary appeals and reversals.” Brown v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 210 , 217, 688 S.E.2d 185, 188 (2010).

2026See Scialdone, 279 Va. at 437 (“To satisfy [Rule 5A:18], ‘an objection must be made . . . at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position . . . to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” (second alteration in original) (quoting Johnson, 264 Va. at 33 )). - 23 - proper award of counsel fees [is] reasonableness under all of the circumstances revealed by the record.” Conley v. Bonasera, 72 Va. App. 337 , 350 (2020) (alterations in original) (quoting McGinnis v. McGinnis, 1 Va. App. 272, 277 (1985)).

2026It must be both specific and timely—so that the trial judge would know the particular point being made in time to do something about it.” Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 351, 356 (2011); see Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437 (2010) (explaining that to satisfy the contemporaneous-objection rule, an objection must be made “at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error”).

2025See Rule 5A:18; Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 258 , 265 (2014) (noting that, for an objection to meet the requirements of Rule 5A:18, it must be made at a point in the proceeding “‘when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error’ . . . [w]hile also giving ‘the opposing party the opportunity to meet the objection at that stage of the proceeding’” (quoting Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437 (2010))). -9- position.” (second alteration in original) (quoting Manns v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 677, 679

2025And although Rule 5A:18 provides exceptions to procedural default “for good cause shown or to enable this Court to attain the ends of justice,” Rule 5A:18, appellant “has not invoked either exception . . . and we do not consider them sua sponte,” Spanos v. Taylor, 76 Va. App. 810 , 827-28 (2023). -6- the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Burford v. Commonwealth, 78 Va. App. 170 , 179 (2023) (quoting Duff v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 293, 297 (1993)).

2024E.g., Carter v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 537, 549 (2017) (“We have repeatedly held that in order to preserve an issue for appeal a party must make known to the trial court the action which he desires the court to take or his objections to the actions and the grounds therefore ‘at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” (quoting Scialdone v. - 18 - Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437 (2010))).

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

2016See Jones v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 437, 445 , 650 S.E.2d 859, 863 (2007) (stating that “post-trial motions regarding admission of evidence generally are not timely”); see also Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 , 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002) (to satisfy Rule 5A:18, “an objection must be made . . . at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error”).

2016See Jones v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 437, 445 , 650 S.E.2d 859, 863 (2007) (stating that “post-trial motions regarding admission of evidence generally are not timely”); see also Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 , 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002) (to satisfy Rule 5A:18, “an objection must be made . . . at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error”).

2011Put another way, “[t]o satisfy the rule, ‘an objection must be made . . . at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437, 689 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2010) (quoting Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 , 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002)). “[T]he main purpose of the rule is to ensure the trial court can ‘consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” Kovalaske, 56

2011Put another way, “[t]o satisfy the rule, ‘an objection must be made . . . at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437, 689 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2010) (quoting Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 , 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002)). “[T]he main purpose of the rule is to ensure the trial court can ‘consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” Kovalaske, 56

2011Put another way, “[t]o satisfy the rule, ‘an objection must be made . . . at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437, 689 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2010) (quoting Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 , 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002)). “[T]he main purpose of the rule is to ensure the trial court can ‘consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” Kovalaske, 56

2011Put another way, “[t]o satisfy the rule, ‘an objection must be made . . . at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437, 689 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2010) (quoting Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 , 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002)). “[T]he main purpose of the rule is to ensure the trial court can ‘consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” Kovalaske, 56

2009See, e.g., Pelletier v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 406 , 423 1 See also Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 , 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002) (holding that the objection must be made “when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error”); Zook v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 560, 568 , 525 S.E.2d 32, 35-36 (2000) (“To be timely, an objection to the admissibility of evidence must be made when the occasion arises ― that is, when the evidence is offered, the statement made or the ruling given.” (citation omitted)), aff’d on o

2009See, e.g., Pelletier v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 406 , 423 1 See also Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 , 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002) (holding that the objection must be made “when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error”); Zook v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 560, 568 , 525 S.E.2d 32, 35-36 (2000) (“To be timely, an objection to the admissibility of evidence must be made when the occasion arises ― that is, when the evidence is offered, the statement made or the ruling given.” (citation omitted)), aff’d on o

2009See, e.g., Pelletier v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 406 , 423 1 See also Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 , 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002) (holding that the objection must be made “when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error”); Zook v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 560, 568 , 525 S.E.2d 32, 35-36 (2000) (“To be timely, an objection to the admissibility of evidence must be made when the occasion arises ― that is, when the evidence is offered, the statement made or the ruling given.” (citation omitted)), aff’d on o

2009See, e.g., Pelletier v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 406 , 423 1 See also Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 , 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002) (holding that the objection must be made “when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error”); Zook v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 560, 568 , 525 S.E.2d 32, 35-36 (2000) (“To be timely, an objection to the admissibility of evidence must be made when the occasion arises ― that is, when the evidence is offered, the statement made or the ruling given.” (citation omitted)), aff’d on o

2009See, e.g., Pelletier v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 406 , 423 1 See also Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 , 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002) (holding that the objection must be made “when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error”); Zook v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 560, 568 , 525 S.E.2d 32, 35-36 (2000) (“To be timely, an objection to the admissibility of evidence must be made when the occasion arises ― that is, when the evidence is offered, the statement made or the ruling given.” (citation omitted)), aff’d on o

2009In order for an objection to be timely, it must be made when the evidence is offered or the ruling given.”). -3- n.4, 592 S.E.2d 382 , 390 n.4 (2004) (finding Confrontation Clause argument waived because it was raised for the first time in a post-trial motion).