proposed jury instruction in Virginia

2026“A trial court’s decision whether to grant or refuse a proposed jury instruction is generally subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion.” Rodrigue v. Butts-Franklin, 79 Va. App. 645 , 653 (2024) (quoting Howsare v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 439, 443 (2017)).

2026On appeal, “we review a circuit court’s decision to grant or deny a proposed jury instruction for an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Kartozia, 304 Va. 321 , 331 (2025) (citing Howsare v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 439, 443 (2017)).

2013When the proposed jury instruction touches upon lesser-included offenses, “[i]f the evidence is sufficient to support ‘a conviction of the crime charged, and there is no independent evidence warranting a conviction [of the lesser-included offense], an instruction on the lesser-included offense need not be given.’” Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 263 Va. 31, 36 , 557 S.E.2d 220, 222-23 (2002) (second alteration in original) (quoting Guss v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 13, 14 , 225 S.E.2d 196, 197 (1976)). [W]e view the facts in the light most favorable to the defendant.

2013When the proposed jury instruction touches upon lesser-included offenses, “[i]f the evidence is sufficient to support ‘a conviction of the crime charged, and there is no independent evidence warranting a conviction [of the lesser-included offense], an instruction on the lesser-included offense need not be given.’” Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 263 Va. 31, 36 , 557 S.E.2d 220, 222-23 (2002) (second alteration in original) (quoting Guss v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 13, 14 , 225 S.E.2d 196, 197 (1976)). [W]e view the facts in the light most favorable to the defendant.

2026“But ‘[a] litigant is entitled to jury instructions supporting his or her theory of the case if sufficient evidence is introduced to support that theory.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Hancock- - 18 - Underwood v. Knight, 277 Va. 127, 130 (2009)).

2025“A trial court’s decision whether to grant or refuse a proposed jury instruction is generally subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion.” Rodrigue v. Butts-Franklin, 79 Va. App. 645 , 653 (2024) (quoting Howsare v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 439, 443 (2017)). “[A] litigant is entitled to jury instructions supporting his or her theory of the case if sufficient evidence is introduced to support that theory.” Id. (quoting Hancock-Underwood v. Knight, 277 Va. 127, 130 (2009)).

2026Appellant alleges he did not go to the shopping center to commit a wrongful act and was unaware that a drug deal with Costanzo was going to take place, so he could not have acted in concert for a wrongful act that he did not participate in. - 19 - “The responsibility of properly instructing a jury ‘rest[s] in the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Holmes v. Commonwealth, 76 Va. App. 34 , 52 (2022) (alteration in original) (quoting Cooper v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 377, 381 (2009)).

2024“A trial court’s decision whether to grant or refuse a proposed jury instruction is generally subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion.” Howsare, 293 Va. at 443 (citing Cooper, 277 Va. at 381 ).

2025“We review a circuit court’s decision to grant or deny a proposed jury instruction for an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Kartozia, ___ Va. ___, ___ (June 5, 2025) (quoting Howsare v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 439, 443 (2017)). “[W]hether a jury instruction accurately states the relevant law is a question of law that we review de novo.” Watson v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 197 , 207 (2019) (quoting Payne v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 855, 869 (2016)).

2022Devine’s proffered jury instruction (Assignments of Error 2-3) Devine also assigns error to the trial court’s decision declining to give his proposed Jury Instruction A. “A trial court’s decision whether to grant or refuse a proposed jury instruction is generally subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Richard, 300 Va. 382 , 389 (2021) (quoting Howsare v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 439, 443 (2017)). “[J]ury instructions are proper only if supported by the evidence, and more than a scintilla of evidence is required.” Id. (quoting Payne v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 855, 869

2019Landeck v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 744, 759 (2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 263 Va. 31, 33 (2002)).

2019See Landeck v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 744, 759 (2012) (involving a proposed instruction rather than a mere request for clarification) (quoting Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 263 Va. 31, 33 (2002)).

2026“A reviewing court’s responsibility in reviewing jury instructions is ‘to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.’” Fahringer v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 208, 211 (2019) (quoting Darnell v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 485, 488 (1988)).

2015“A reviewing court’s responsibility in reviewing jury instructions is ‘to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.’” Id. (quoting Darnell v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 485, 488 , 370 S.E.2d 717, 718 (1988)).

2026“We apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard alongside our recognition that ‘[a] litigant is entitled to jury instructions supporting his or her theory of the case if sufficient evidence is introduced to 9 Perkins’s proffered instruction on principal in the second degree included the language, “[a] principal in the first degree is the person who actually commits the crime.” He objected to the Commonwealth’s proffered instruction, which did not include that language, but was otherwise the same. -6- support that theory and if the instructions correctly state the law.’” Id. at 332 (alte

2024“A litigant is entitled to jury instructions supporting his or her theory of the -4- case if sufficient evidence is introduced to support that theory and if the instructions correctly state the law.” Schlimmer v. Poverty Hunt Club, 268 Va. 74, 78 (2004).

2025“Our ‘sole responsibility’ in reviewing a challenge to jury instructions is to ‘see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.’” Taylor v. Commonwealth, 77 Va. App. 149 , 166 (2023) (quoting Molina v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 666, 671 (2006)).

2024“Our ‘sole responsibility’ in reviewing a challenge to jury instructions ‘is to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.’” Taylor v. Commonwealth, 77 Va. App. 149 , 166 (2023) (quoting Molina v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 666, 671 (2006)). “[A] litigant is entitled to jury instructions supporting his or her theory of the case if sufficient evidence is introduced to support that theory,” and the evidence is sufficient if it “amount[s] to more than a scintilla.” Rodrigue, 79 Va. at 653 (second alteration in original) (quotin

2024See generally Parnell, 15 Va. App. at 345-47 (affirming the rejection of a proposed jury instruction defining “true threat” because it was potentially misleading). - 14 - 2.

2014Here, when the trial court pointed out that the proffered definition in the instruction “would be common sense[,]” defense counsel agreed, stating, “That’s why I submitted it, Judge.” While the appellant’s proposed jury instruction contains a correct definition of the intent to steal, this Court has previously found that a trial court does not “commit reversible error in ‘rely[ing] upon the intelligence of jurors to give plain, ordinary words their plain, ordinary meaning.’” Wells, 60 Va. App. at 124 , 724 S.E.2d at 231 (alteration in original) (quoting Parnell v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 342

2018In conducting such a review, “[o]nly when reasonable jurists could not differ can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555, 564 , 790 S.E.2d 493, 499 (2016) (quoting Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620 , 685 S.E.2d 634, 644 (2009)).

2018In conducting such a review, “[o]nly when reasonable jurists could not differ can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555, 564 , 790 S.E.2d 493, 499 (2016) (quoting Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620 , 685 S.E.2d 634, 644 (2009)).

2018In conducting such a review, “[o]nly when reasonable jurists could not differ can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555, 564 , 790 S.E.2d 493, 499 (2016) (quoting Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620 , 685 S.E.2d 634, 644 (2009)).

2018In conducting such a review, “[o]nly when reasonable jurists could not differ can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555, 564 , 790 S.E.2d 493, 499 (2016) (quoting Grattan v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 602, 620 , 685 S.E.2d 634, 644 (2009)).

2013When the proposed jury instruction touches upon lesser-included offenses, “[i]f the evidence is sufficient to support ‘a conviction of the crime charged, and there is no independent evidence warranting a conviction [of the lesser-included offense], an instruction on the lesser-included offense need not be given.’” Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 263 Va. 31, 36 , 557 S.E.2d 220, 222-23 (2002) (second alteration in original) (quoting Guss v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 13, 14 , 225 S.E.2d 196, 197 (1976)). [W]e view the facts in the light most favorable to the defendant.

2013When the proposed jury instruction touches upon lesser-included offenses, “[i]f the evidence is sufficient to support ‘a conviction of the crime charged, and there is no independent evidence warranting a conviction [of the lesser-included offense], an instruction on the lesser-included offense need not be given.’” Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 263 Va. 31, 36 , 557 S.E.2d 220, 222-23 (2002) (second alteration in original) (quoting Guss v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 13, 14 , 225 S.E.2d 196, 197 (1976)). [W]e view the facts in the light most favorable to the defendant.

2000“A proposed jury instruction submitted by a party, which constitutes an accurate statement of the law applicable to the case, shall not be withheld from the jury solely for its nonconformance with model jury instructions.” Code § 19.2-263.2. “[W]here evidence tends to sustain both the prosecution’s and the defense’s theory of the case, the trial judge is required to give requested instructions covering both theories.” Diffendal v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 417, 422 , 382 S.E.2d 24, 26 (1989).

2000“A proposed jury instruction submitted by a party, which constitutes an accurate statement of the law applicable to the case, shall not be withheld from the jury solely for its nonconformance with model jury instructions.” Code § 19.2-263.2. “[W]here evidence tends to sustain both the prosecution’s and the defense’s theory of the case, the trial judge is required to give requested instructions covering both theories.” Diffendal v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 417, 422 , 382 S.E.2d 24, 26 (1989).

2026“A reviewing court’s responsibility in reviewing jury instructions is ‘to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.’” Fahringer v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 208, 211 (2019) (quoting Darnell v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 485, 488 (1988)).

2026The trial judge asked counsel what Adams said, because she “may want to see what the case says before I’m giving a jury instruction on it.” Counsel for Wootten then quoted from another case, Perkins v. Commonwealth, 186 Va. 867, 874-75 (1947), but the language counsel quoted from Perkins differed from the language in the proposed jury instruction so the trial judge rejected the proposed instruction.

2025To show a miscarriage of justice, “the appellant must demonstrate that he or she was convicted for conduct that was not a criminal offense or the record must affirmatively prove that an element of the offense did not occur.” Holt, 66 Va. App. at 210 (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 222 (1997)).

2025See generally Linnon, 287 Va. at 105 (applying Rule 5:25, the Supreme Court of Virginia’s counterpart to Rule 5A:18, to bar an argument in support of the appellant’s proposed jury instruction because he did not make that specific argument in support of the instruction at trial). -6- as requiring consideration of “whether there is error” as the appellant contends and “whether the failure to apply the [exception] would result in a grave injustice” (quoting Gheorghiu v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 678, 689 (2010))).

2024Inc. v. Alston Power, Inc., 297 Va. 262 , 271 (2019); Kerns v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 296 Va. 146, 160 (2018). 2 Because this Court must resolve appeals “on the best and narrowest grounds available,” Butcher v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 392 , 396 (2020) (quoting Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 419 (2017)), and because we may affirm a trial court for reaching the right result though for a different reason, see Peters v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 378 , 388-89 (2020), we do not address whether the circuit court was correct in deciding it could not offer the proposed jury instruction without commen

2024Inc. v. Alston Power, Inc., 297 Va. 262 , 271 (2019); Kerns v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 296 Va. 146, 160 (2018). 2 Because this Court must resolve appeals “on the best and narrowest grounds available,” Butcher v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 392 , 396 (2020) (quoting Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 419 (2017)), and because we may affirm a trial court for reaching the right result though for a different reason, see Peters v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 378 , 388-89 (2020), we do not address whether the circuit court was correct in deciding it could not offer the proposed jury instruction without commen

2023This Court’s objective in reviewing jury instructions is “to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.” Dorman v. State Indus., Inc., 292 Va. 111, 125 (2016) (quoting Cain v. Lee, 290 Va. 129 , 134 (2015)). “[W]hether a jury instruction accurately states the relevant law is a question of law that - 10 - we review de novo.

2015Furthermore, when the proposed jury instruction touches upon a lesser-included offense and there is any credible evidence in the record to support the instruction, “ ‘failure to give the instruction is reversible error.’ ” Id. at 412 , 430 S.E.2d at 565 (quoting Boone v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 130, 132 , 415 S.E.2d 250, 251 (1992)).

2015Furthermore, when the proposed jury instruction touches upon a lesser-included offense and there is any credible evidence in the record to support the instruction, “ ‘failure to give the instruction is reversible error.’ ” Id. at 412 , 430 S.E.2d at 565 (quoting Boone v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 130, 132 , 415 S.E.2d 250, 251 (1992)).

2014The Foundation argued that the proposed jury instruction tracked the language from Rudolph v. Farmers' Supply Co., 131 Va. 305, 310-11 , 108 S.E. 638, 639 (1921) and properly addressed the imputed notice issue raised by Barnett.

2014The Foundation argued that the proposed jury instruction tracked the language from Rudolph v. Farmers' Supply Co., 131 Va. 305, 310-11 , 108 S.E. 638, 639 (1921) and properly addressed the imputed notice issue raised by Barnett.

2014Here, when the trial court pointed out that the proffered definition in the instruction “would be common sense[,]” defense counsel agreed, stating, “That’s why I submitted it, Judge.” While the appellant’s proposed jury instruction contains a correct definition of the intent to steal, this Court has previously found that a trial court does not “commit reversible error in ‘rely[ing] upon the intelligence of jurors to give plain, ordinary words their plain, ordinary meaning.’” Wells, 60 Va. App. at 124 , 724 S.E.2d at 231 (alteration in original) (quoting Parnell v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 342

2014Here, when the trial court pointed out that the proffered definition in the instruction “would be common sense[,]” defense counsel agreed, stating, “That’s why I submitted it, Judge.” While the appellant’s proposed jury instruction contains a correct definition of the intent to steal, this Court has previously found that a trial court does not “commit reversible error in ‘rely[ing] upon the intelligence of jurors to give plain, ordinary words their plain, ordinary meaning.’” Wells, 60 Va. App. at 124 , 724 S.E.2d at 231 (alteration in original) (quoting Parnell v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 342

2013See Daniels v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 460, 466 , 657 S.E.2d 84, 87 (2008) (“Our review then is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the proposed instruction for [the trial court’s given] reasons.”). -6- “‘When granted instructions fully and fairly cover a principle of law, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing another instruction relating to the same legal principle.’” Id. (quoting Stockton v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 124, 145 , 314 S.E.2d 371, 384 (1984)).

2013See Daniels v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 460, 466 , 657 S.E.2d 84, 87 (2008) (“Our review then is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the proposed instruction for [the trial court’s given] reasons.”). -6- “‘When granted instructions fully and fairly cover a principle of law, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing another instruction relating to the same legal principle.’” Id. (quoting Stockton v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 124, 145 , 314 S.E.2d 371, 384 (1984)).