explicit cautionary instruction in Virginia

2026“Unless the record shows the contrary, it is to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given.” LeVasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 589 (1983).

2025“Juries are presumed to follow prompt, explicit, curative instructions from the trial judge.” Mills v. Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 415, 420 (1997); see also LeVasseur, 225 Va. at 589 (“Unless the record shows the contrary, it is to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given.”).

2001When, as here, the record does not show otherwise, "it is to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction." Albert v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 734, 741 , 347 S.E.2d 534, 538 (1986).

2001When, as here, the record does not show otherwise, "it is to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction." Albert v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 734, 741 , 347 S.E.2d 534, 538 (1986).

2025“It is always to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given, unless the record clearly shows that the jury disregarded it.” Spencer, 240 Va. at 95 .

2018Rather, Taylor simply stated that there had been a previous robbery, and his answer did not explicitly link appellant to a prior criminal act. -5- Further, the trial court clearly instructed the jury to disregard Taylor’s answer to the Commonwealth’s question. “[I]t is always to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given, unless the record clearly shows that the jury disregarded it.” Spencer v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 78, 95 , 393 S.E.2d 609, 619 (1990).

2000Unless the record shows the contrary, it is to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given. - 4 - LeVasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 589 , 304 S.E.2d 644, 657 (1983) (quoting Black v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 277, 286 , 288 S.E.2d 449, 454 (1982)).

2000Unless the record shows the contrary, it is to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given. - 4 - LeVasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 589 , 304 S.E.2d 644, 657 (1983) (quoting Black v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 277, 286 , 288 S.E.2d 449, 454 (1982)).

1997Generally, a trial court may cure errors arising from inadmissible evidence or improper argument by promptly instructing the jury to disregard what they just heard. -11- See LeVasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 589 , 304 S.E.2d 644, 657 (1983); Lewis v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 80, 83 , 175 S.E.2d 236, 238 (1970). "'Unless the record shows to the contrary, it is presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given.'" Albert v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 734, 741 , 347 S.E.2d 534, 538 (1986) (quoting LeVasseur, 225 Va. at 589 , 304 S.E.2d at 657 ).

1997Generally, a trial court may cure errors arising from inadmissible evidence or improper argument by promptly instructing the jury to disregard what they just heard. -11- See LeVasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 589 , 304 S.E.2d 644, 657 (1983); Lewis v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 80, 83 , 175 S.E.2d 236, 238 (1970). "'Unless the record shows to the contrary, it is presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given.'" Albert v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 734, 741 , 347 S.E.2d 534, 538 (1986) (quoting LeVasseur, 225 Va. at 589 , 304 S.E.2d at 657 ).

2024Popal cites no authority for the proposition that causation testimony requires medical terms. -9- jury is presumed to have followed a timely and explicit cautionary instruction directing it to disregard an improper remark or question[.]” Gross, 297 Va. at 774 (quoting Lowe, 268 Va. at 272 ); see also Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296, 317 (2004) (“Unless the record shows otherwise, . . . we presume that a jury follows an explicit cautionary instruction given by the trial court.”). “[W]hether the conduct was prejudicial is basically a question of fact to be determined in light of all the circu

2023“Unless the record shows otherwise, . . . we presume that a jury follows an explicit cautionary instruction given by the trial court.” Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296, 317 (2004) (citing LeVasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 589 (1983)); see also Essex v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 168, 172 (1994) (holding that the trial court did not err by allowing -6- the Commonwealth to identify the defendant’s prior conviction as murder and noting that any “prejudice may be alleviated by a jury instruction limiting the purpose for which the evidence is offered”).

2024Popal cites no authority for the proposition that causation testimony requires medical terms. -9- jury is presumed to have followed a timely and explicit cautionary instruction directing it to disregard an improper remark or question[.]” Gross, 297 Va. at 774 (quoting Lowe, 268 Va. at 272 ); see also Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296, 317 (2004) (“Unless the record shows otherwise, . . . we presume that a jury follows an explicit cautionary instruction given by the trial court.”). “[W]hether the conduct was prejudicial is basically a question of fact to be determined in light of all the circu

2014See Greenway v. Commonwealth, 254 Va. 147, 154 , 487 S.E.2d 224, 228 (1997) (“Improper admission of evidence does not create reversible error when it is merely cumulative of other competent evidence properly admitted.”). “[I]t is always to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given, unless the record clearly shows that the jury disregarded it.” Spencer, 240 Va. at 2 As we recently observed in Landeck, the Supreme Court concluded the cautionary instruction in Kitze was inadequate because the trial court “issued only a generalized cautionary instruction

2025“Whether a manifest probability exists that the improper evidence prejudiced the accused despite the cautionary instruction depends upon the nature of the incompetent evidence when considered in relation to the nature of the charges, the other evidence in the case, and manner in which the prejudicial evidence was presented.” Mills, 24 Va. App. at 420-21 .

2025“Juries are presumed to follow prompt, explicit, curative instructions from the trial judge.” Mills v. Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 415, 420 (1997); see also LeVasseur, 225 Va. at 589 (“Unless the record shows the contrary, it is to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given.”).

2025“Considering the innocuous nature of the prosecutor’s comment under all the circumstances of the case, [and] the circuit court’s cautionary instruction to the jury, . . . [appellant’s] rights were clearly not so indelibly prejudiced as to necessitate a new trial.” Blanton v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 447, 456 (2010) (prosecutor’s comment during argument that defendant was in jail after the killing did not warrant a mistrial).

2024Popal cites no authority for the proposition that causation testimony requires medical terms. -9- jury is presumed to have followed a timely and explicit cautionary instruction directing it to disregard an improper remark or question[.]” Gross, 297 Va. at 774 (quoting Lowe, 268 Va. at 272 ); see also Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296, 317 (2004) (“Unless the record shows otherwise, . . . we presume that a jury follows an explicit cautionary instruction given by the trial court.”). “[W]hether the conduct was prejudicial is basically a question of fact to be determined in light of all the circu

2023“Unless the record shows otherwise, . . . we presume that a jury follows an explicit cautionary instruction given by the trial court.” Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296, 317 (2004) (citing LeVasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 589 (1983)); see also Essex v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 168, 172 (1994) (holding that the trial court did not err by allowing -6- the Commonwealth to identify the defendant’s prior conviction as murder and noting that any “prejudice may be alleviated by a jury instruction limiting the purpose for which the evidence is offered”).

2016If it gave a curative instruction to the jury, the jury is presumed to have followed ‘an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given’ unless the record shows otherwise.” Lavinder v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 1003, 1007-08 , 407 S.E.2d 910, 912 (1991) (quoting LeVasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 589 , 304 S.E.2d 644, 657 (1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1063 (1984)); see also Seaton v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 739, 750 , 595 S.E.2d 9, 14 (2004) (applying the same principle to a curative instruction given in response to a question from the jury after it had retired for deliberation).

2016If it gave a curative instruction to the jury, the jury is presumed to have followed ‘an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given’ unless the record shows otherwise.” Lavinder v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 1003, 1007-08 , 407 S.E.2d 910, 912 (1991) (quoting LeVasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 589 , 304 S.E.2d 644, 657 (1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1063 (1984)); see also Seaton v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 739, 750 , 595 S.E.2d 9, 14 (2004) (applying the same principle to a curative instruction given in response to a question from the jury after it had retired for deliberation).

2014See Greenway v. Commonwealth, 254 Va. 147, 154 , 487 S.E.2d 224, 228 (1997) (“Improper admission of evidence does not create reversible error when it is merely cumulative of other competent evidence properly admitted.”). “[I]t is always to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given, unless the record clearly shows that the jury disregarded it.” Spencer, 240 Va. at 2 As we recently observed in Landeck, the Supreme Court concluded the cautionary instruction in Kitze was inadequate because the trial court “issued only a generalized cautionary instruction

2014See Greenway v. Commonwealth, 254 Va. 147, 154 , 487 S.E.2d 224, 228 (1997) (“Improper admission of evidence does not create reversible error when it is merely cumulative of other competent evidence properly admitted.”). “[I]t is always to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given, unless the record clearly shows that the jury disregarded it.” Spencer, 240 Va. at 2 As we recently observed in Landeck, the Supreme Court concluded the cautionary instruction in Kitze was inadequate because the trial court “issued only a generalized cautionary instruction

2013It is presumed “unless the record expressly shows otherwise, that juries conscientiously follow an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given.” Hall v. Commonwealth, 233 Va. 369, 375 , 355 S.E.2d 591, 595 , n. * (1987); accord Centra Health, Inc. v. Mullins, 277 Va. 59, 81 , 670 S.E.2d 708, 720 (2009) (“A jury is presumed to follow the court’s instructions... .”).

2013It is presumed “unless the record expressly shows otherwise, that juries conscientiously follow an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given.” Hall v. Commonwealth, 233 Va. 369, 375 , 355 S.E.2d 591, 595 , n. * (1987); accord Centra Health, Inc. v. Mullins, 277 Va. 59, 81 , 670 S.E.2d 708, 720 (2009) (“A jury is presumed to follow the court’s instructions... .”).

2002LeVasseur, 225 Va. at 589 , 304 S.E.2d at 657 ("Unless the record shows the - 7 - contrary, it is to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given."); cf. Berry v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 209, 213-14 , 468 S.E.2d 685, 687-88 (1996) (holding that where evidence is admissible for limited purpose, trial court has no duty to give limiting or cautionary instruction sua sponte and accused waives right to instruction by not requesting it at trial).

2002LeVasseur, 225 Va. at 589 , 304 S.E.2d at 657 ("Unless the record shows the - 7 - contrary, it is to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given."); cf. Berry v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 209, 213-14 , 468 S.E.2d 685, 687-88 (1996) (holding that where evidence is admissible for limited purpose, trial court has no duty to give limiting or cautionary instruction sua sponte and accused waives right to instruction by not requesting it at trial).

2001See Cheng v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 26, 40 , 393 S.E.2d 599, 607 (1990).

2001See Cheng v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 26, 40 , 393 S.E.2d 599, 607 (1990).

1999As an exception to this rule, “ ‘the admission of incompetent evidence is reversible error notwithstanding the fact that the trial court, after its admission, instructed the jury to disregard it, if such illegal evidence was so impressive that it probably remained on the minds of the jury and influenced their verdict.’ ” Mills, 24 Va.App. at 420 , 482 S.E.2d at 862 (quoting Asbury v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 101, 106 , 175 S.E.2d 239, 241 (1970)).

1999As an exception to this rule, “ ‘the admission of incompetent evidence is reversible error notwithstanding the fact that the trial court, after its admission, instructed the jury to disregard it, if such illegal evidence was so impressive that it probably remained on the minds of the jury and influenced their verdict.’ ” Mills, 24 Va.App. at 420 , 482 S.E.2d at 862 (quoting Asbury v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 101, 106 , 175 S.E.2d 239, 241 (1970)).

1993“Unless the record shows to the contrary, it is to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction. . . .” Albert v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 734, 741, 347 *549 S.E.2d 534, 538 (1986).

1991Also, “unless the record shows the contrary, it is to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given.” Hogan v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 36, 44 , 360 S.E.2d 371, 375 (1987).

1991Also, “unless the record shows the contrary, it is to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given.” Hogan v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 36, 44 , 360 S.E.2d 371, 375 (1987).

1986“Unless the record shows to the contrary, it is to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given.” Lavasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 589 , 304 S.E.2d 644, 657 (1983); Stotler v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 481, 484 , 346 S.E.2d 39, 41 (1986).

1986“Unless the record shows to the contrary, it is to be presumed that the jury followed an explicit cautionary instruction promptly given.” Lavasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 589 , 304 S.E.2d 644, 657 (1983); Stotler v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 481, 484 , 346 S.E.2d 39, 41 (1986).