made error in Virginia

2024The trial court held that Hawkins was not entitled to attorney fees, despite having substantially prevailed on the merits of the case and being awarded post-remand costs, merely because he petitioned “as a pro se litigant, and a pro se litigant such as Hawkins is not entitled to attorney’s fees under VFOIA even if he is a licensed attorney and substantially prevails on the merits of the case.” “In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, ‘we review the trial court’s statutory interpretations and legal conclusions de novo.’” Rollins v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 73, 79 (2001) (q

2024“In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, ‘we review the trial court’s statutory interpretations and legal conclusions de novo.’” Rollins v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 73, 79 (2001) (quoting Timbers v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 187, 193 (1998)).

2024The trial court held that Hawkins was not entitled to attorney fees, despite having substantially prevailed on the merits of the case and being awarded post-remand costs, merely because he petitioned “as a pro se litigant, and a pro se litigant such as Hawkins is not entitled to attorney’s fees under VFOIA even if he is a licensed attorney and substantially prevails on the merits of the case.” “In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, ‘we review the trial court’s statutory interpretations and legal conclusions de novo.’” Rollins v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 73, 79 (2001) (q

2024“In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, ‘we review the trial court’s statutory interpretations and legal conclusions de novo.’” Rollins v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 73, 79 (2001) (quoting Timbers v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 187, 193 (1998)).

2023“In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, ‘we review the trial court’s statutory interpretations and legal conclusions de novo.’” Auer v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 637, 643 (2005) (quoting Rollins v. Commonwealth, 37 16 During argument on the motion, Bista’s trial counsel reiterated that R.P.’s cross-examination during the preliminary hearing did not satisfy the Confrontation Clause because after the hearing, the Commonwealth brought an additional charge, Bista received more discovery and school records, R.P. admitted to falsely testifying at the preliminary hearing, and th

2023“In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, ‘we review the trial court’s statutory interpretations and legal conclusions de novo.’” Auer v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 637, 643 (2005) (quoting Rollins v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 73, 79 (2001)).

2023“The measure of the burden of proof with respect to factual questions underlying the admissibility of evidence is proof by a preponderance of the evidence.” Campos v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 690, 702 (2017) (quoting Witt v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 670, 674 (1975)).

2023“The measure of the burden of proof with respect to factual questions underlying the admissibility of evidence is proof by a preponderance of the evidence.” Campos v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 690, 702 (2017) (quoting Witt v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 670, 674 (1975)).

2023“The measure of the burden of proof with respect to factual questions underlying the admissibility of evidence is proof by a preponderance of the evidence.” Campos v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 690, 702 (2017) (quoting Witt v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 670, 674 (1975)).

2023“The measure of the burden of proof with respect to factual questions underlying the admissibility of evidence is proof by a preponderance of the evidence.” Campos v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 690, 702 (2017) (quoting Witt v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 670, 674 (1975)).

2020“The purpose of an indictment ‘is to give an accused notice of the nature and character of the accusations against him in order that he can adequately prepare to defend against his accuser.’” Walshaw v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 103, 109 (2004) (quoting King v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 193, 198 (2003)).

2014“The purpose of an indictment ‘is to give an accused notice of the nature and character of the accusations against him in order that he can adequately prepare to defend against his accuser.’” Walshaw v. Commonwealth, 44 Va.App. 103, 109 , 603 S.E.2d 633, 636 (2004) (quoting King v. Commonwealth, 40 Va.App. 193, 198 , 578 S.E.2d 803, 806 (2003)).

2020“The purpose of an indictment ‘is to give an accused notice of the nature and character of the accusations against him in order that he can adequately prepare to defend against his accuser.’” Walshaw v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 103, 109 (2004) (quoting King v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 193, 198 (2003)).

2014“The purpose of an indictment ‘is to give an accused notice of the nature and character of the accusations against him in order that he can adequately prepare to defend against his accuser.’” Walshaw v. Commonwealth, 44 Va.App. 103, 109 , 603 S.E.2d 633, 636 (2004) (quoting King v. Commonwealth, 40 Va.App. 193, 198 , 578 S.E.2d 803, 806 (2003)).

2016STANDARD OF REVIEW “We review decisions involving the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion by the trial court.” Jones v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 437, 445-46 , 650 S.E.2d 859, 863 (2007). “‘[A] trial court “by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.”’ ‘In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, “we review the trial court’s statutory interpretations and legal conclusions de novo.”’” Auer v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App 637, 643, 621 S.E.2d 140, 143 (2005) (first quoting Shooltz v. Shooltz, 27 Va. App. 264, 271 , 498 S.E.2d 437, 441 (1998), then qu

2016STANDARD OF REVIEW “We review decisions involving the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion by the trial court.” Jones v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 437, 445-46 , 650 S.E.2d 859, 863 (2007). “‘[A] trial court “by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.”’ ‘In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, “we review the trial court’s statutory interpretations and legal conclusions de novo.”’” Auer v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App 637, 643, 621 S.E.2d 140, 143 (2005) (first quoting Shooltz v. Shooltz, 27 Va. App. 264, 271 , 498 S.E.2d 437, 441 (1998), then qu

2023“Hearsay is ‘a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.’” Atkins v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 1, 8 (2017) (quoting Va. R.

2023The trial court made an error of law when it implicitly ruled that the Commonwealth’s identification of Mr. Williams as a sexually violent predator would not undermine his right to a fair trial, which is “a fundamental liberty secured by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503 (1976).

2023The Commonwealth’s identification of Mr. Williams as a “sexually violent predator” at the outset of the jury trial was inherently prejudicial because it created “an unacceptable risk . . . of impermissible factors coming into play.” Porter, 276 Va. at 261 (quoting Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 570 (1986)).

2022We need not decide whether Rigdon meets the statutory definition of victim because the record demonstrates that her testimony and written statement were admissible under Rock v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 254 (2005).3 In Rock, we held that nothing in the Crime Victim and Witness Rights Act prohibits a court from admitting relevant evidence or testimony from other witnesses who do not meet the statutory definition of “victim.” Id. at 261-63 ; see also Smith v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 357, 363 (1998) (noting that a “court must take into account a wide range of information” at sentencing).

2022On brief, however, the Commonwealth assigned error only to the following: “The Trial Court clearly erred when it found an officer seized Appellee by pointing at Appellee’s pocket during a consensual encounter.” Rule 5A:20(e) requires “that an appellant’s opening brief contain ‘[t]he principles of law, the argument, and the authorities relating to each question presented.’” Bartley v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 740, 744 (2017).3 We find this argument was defaulted.

2022“In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, ‘we review the trial court’s . . . legal conclusions de novo.’” Twine v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 224, 231 (2006) (quoting Rollins v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 73, 79 (2001)).

2016STANDARD OF REVIEW “We review decisions involving the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion by the trial court.” Jones v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 437, 445-46 , 650 S.E.2d 859, 863 (2007). “‘[A] trial court “by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.”’ ‘In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, “we review the trial court’s statutory interpretations and legal conclusions de novo.”’” Auer v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App 637, 643, 621 S.E.2d 140, 143 (2005) (first quoting Shooltz v. Shooltz, 27 Va. App. 264, 271 , 498 S.E.2d 437, 441 (1998), then qu

2016STANDARD OF REVIEW “We review decisions involving the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion by the trial court.” Jones v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 437, 445-46 , 650 S.E.2d 859, 863 (2007). “‘[A] trial court “by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.”’ ‘In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, “we review the trial court’s statutory interpretations and legal conclusions de novo.”’” Auer v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App 637, 643, 621 S.E.2d 140, 143 (2005) (first quoting Shooltz v. Shooltz, 27 Va. App. 264, 271 , 498 S.E.2d 437, 441 (1998), then qu

2008See Martin v. Phillips, 235 Va. 523, 529 , 369 S.E.2d 397, 401 (1988) (holding that a trial court made an error of law when it applied the incorrect standard of proof), overruled on other grounds by Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 268 Va. 23, 33 , 597 S.E.2d 34, 39 (2004); Gulfstream Building Assocs., Inc. v. Britt, 239 Va. 178, 183 , 387 S.E.2d 488, 491 (1990) (noting that application of a preponderance standard of proof, rather than the clear and convincing standard of proof, was error in a case that involved fraud).

2008See Martin v. Phillips, 235 Va. 523, 529 , 369 S.E.2d 397, 401 (1988) (holding that a trial court made an error of law when it applied the incorrect standard of proof), overruled on other grounds by Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 268 Va. 23, 33 , 597 S.E.2d 34, 39 (2004); Gulfstream Building Assocs., Inc. v. Britt, 239 Va. 178, 183 , 387 S.E.2d 488, 491 (1990) (noting that application of a preponderance standard of proof, rather than the clear and convincing standard of proof, was error in a case that involved fraud).

2008See Martin v. Phillips, 235 Va. 523, 529 , 369 S.E.2d 397, 401 (1988) (holding that a trial court made an error of law when it applied the incorrect standard of proof), overruled on other grounds by Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 268 Va. 23, 33 , 597 S.E.2d 34, 39 (2004); Gulfstream Building Assocs., Inc. v. Britt, 239 Va. 178, 183 , 387 S.E.2d 488, 491 (1990) (noting that application of a preponderance standard of proof, rather than the clear and convincing standard of proof, was error in a case that involved fraud).

2008See Martin v. Phillips, 235 Va. 523, 529 , 369 S.E.2d 397, 401 (1988) (holding that a trial court made an error of law when it applied the incorrect standard of proof), overruled on other grounds by Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 268 Va. 23, 33 , 597 S.E.2d 34, 39 (2004); Gulfstream Building Assocs., Inc. v. Britt, 239 Va. 178, 183 , 387 S.E.2d 488, 491 (1990) (noting that application of a preponderance standard of proof, rather than the clear and convincing standard of proof, was error in a case that involved fraud).

2008See Martin v. Phillips, 235 Va. 523, 529 , 369 S.E.2d 397, 401 (1988) (holding that a trial court made an error of law when it applied the incorrect standard of proof), overruled on other grounds by Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 268 Va. 23, 33 , 597 S.E.2d 34, 39 (2004); Gulfstream Building Assocs., Inc. v. Britt, 239 Va. 178, 183 , 387 S.E.2d 488, 491 (1990) (noting that application of a preponderance standard of proof, rather than the clear and convincing standard of proof, was error in a case that involved fraud).

2008See Martin v. Phillips, 235 Va. 523, 529 , 369 S.E.2d 397, 401 (1988) (holding that a trial court made an error of law when it applied the incorrect standard of proof), overruled on other grounds by Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. Beckner, 268 Va. 23, 33 , 597 S.E.2d 34, 39 (2004); Gulfstream Building Assocs., Inc. v. Britt, 239 Va. 178, 183 , 387 S.E.2d 488, 491 (1990) (noting that application of a preponderance standard of proof, rather than the clear and convincing standard of proof, was error in a case that involved fraud).

2005Charles, 264 Va. 344, 348 , 568 S.E.2d 680, 682 (2002) (citations omitted). “[A] statute should never be construed so that it leads to absurd results.” Branch v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 836, 839 , 419 S.E.2d 422, 424 (1992) (citations omitted).

2005Charles, 264 Va. 344, 348 , 568 S.E.2d 680, 682 (2002) (citations omitted). “[A] statute should never be construed so that it leads to absurd results.” Branch v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 836, 839 , 419 S.E.2d 422, 424 (1992) (citations omitted).

2005"In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, 'we review the trial court’s statutory interpretations and legal conclusions de novo.’ ” Rollins v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 73, 79 , 554 S.E.2d 99, 102 (2001) (quoting Timbers v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 187, 193 , 503 S.E.2d 233, 236 (1998)); see also Davis v. Commonwealth, 45 Va.App. 12, 14 , 608 S.E.2d 482, 483 (2005).

2005"In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, 'we review the trial court’s statutory interpretations and legal conclusions de novo.’ ” Rollins v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 73, 79 , 554 S.E.2d 99, 102 (2001) (quoting Timbers v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 187, 193 , 503 S.E.2d 233, 236 (1998)); see also Davis v. Commonwealth, 45 Va.App. 12, 14 , 608 S.E.2d 482, 483 (2005).

2005Charles, 264 Va. 344, 348 , 568 S.E.2d 680, 682 (2002) (citations omitted). “[A] statute should never be construed so that it leads to absurd results.” Branch v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 836, 839 , 419 S.E.2d 422, 424 (1992) (citations omitted).

2005Charles, 264 Va. 344, 348 , 568 S.E.2d 680, 682 (2002) (citations omitted). “[A] statute should never be construed so that it leads to absurd results.” Branch v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 836, 839 , 419 S.E.2d 422, 424 (1992) (citations omitted).

2002In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, “we review the trial court’s ... legal conclusions de novo.” Timbers v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 187, 193 , 503 S.E.2d 233, 236 (1998). *149 “As a general rule, only under limited circumstances may evidence of other offenses by an accused be admitted to prove the offense at bar.” Langhorne v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 97, 101 , 409 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1991).

2002In determining whether the trial court made an error of law, “we review the trial court’s ... legal conclusions de novo.” Timbers v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 187, 193 , 503 S.E.2d 233, 236 (1998). *149 “As a general rule, only under limited circumstances may evidence of other offenses by an accused be admitted to prove the offense at bar.” Langhorne v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 97, 101 , 409 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1991).