COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick,* Judge Annunziata and 

 Senior Judge Duff 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

EMMITT LARON TAYLOR 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION** BY 

v. Record No. 1776-96-4 CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK 

 DECEMBER 30, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY 

William L. Winston, Judge 

 Robert J. Hill for appellant. 

 Richard B. Smith, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

 brief), for appellee. 

 Emmitt Taylor (appellant) was convicted in a bifurcated jury 

trial of (1) conspiring to distribute five or more pounds of 

marijuana; (2) possessing with the intent to distribute five or 

more pounds of marijuana; and (3) transporting five or more 

pounds of marijuana into Virginia with the intent to sell or 

distribute it. During the sentencing phase of the trial, 

appellant attempted to introduce evidence concerning his family 

history and upbringing as mitigating factors to be considered in 

imposing a sentence. The trial court excluded the evidence as 

beyond the scope of Code § 19.2-295.1 and found that such 

testimony is not "relevant, admissible evidence related to 

 

 *On November 19, 1997, Judge Fitzpatrick succeeded Judge 

Moon as chief judge. 

 **Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

punishment." We disagree and reverse the decision of the trial 

court and remand for a new sentencing proceeding. 

 After the jury found appellant guilty on the underlying 

charges, the Commonwealth presented evidence that at the age of 

seventeen, he was convicted of armed robbery in the state of 

California. Appellant then attempted to introduce evidence of 

his family situation and background as mitigating circumstances 

to be considered at the penalty stage of the trial. The court 

found the evidence inadmissible, and appellant was sentenced to 

confinement in the penitentiary for 18 years on the conspiracy 

and distribution charges and 20 years with an $80,000 fine on the 

transporting charge. The trial court suspended the execution of 

the 18-year sentence for a period of 18 years upon the completion 

of the time served on the transporting sentence. The court 

imposed the 20-year sentence and fine fixed by the jury on the 

transporting charge. 

 After the sentencing hearing, the trial court allowed 

appellant to proffer the excluded evidence. Appellant testified 

that his father had been killed when he was nine, that he had no 

male role models, that his mother abused drugs and alcohol, that 

his half-brother had been shot, and that he had no fixed home 

before he came to Virginia at the age of 22. He contends that 

the trial court should have allowed the jury to consider these 

facts. 

 This case is controlled by our recent en banc decision in 
 3 

Shifflett v. Commonwealth, __ Va. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ 

(1997), which analyzed the requirements of Code § 19.2-295.1 

This statute gives juries great latitude in determining an 

appropriate sentence within the statutory framework provided. 

See id.

 "The sentencing decision is a quest for a sentence that best 

effectuates the criminal justice system's goals of deterrence 

(general and specific), incapacitation, retribution and 

rehabilitation." Gilliam v. Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 519, 524, 

465 S.E.2d 592, 594 (1996) (citation omitted) (footnote omitted). 

 "A jury must be allowed to consider all relevant evidence." 

Shifflett, __ Va. App. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___ (citing Jurek v. 

Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 271 (1976)). "[R]elevant sentencing factors 

traditionally have included an accused's habits, lifestyle, 

mental resources, family, and occupation." Shifflett, __ Va. 

App. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___. 

 The excluded evidence in this case clearly was relevant to 

appellant's background and family situation at the time of the 

earlier conviction and was also probative of his current 

situation. It was error for the trial court to exclude this 

information from the jury's purview. Accordingly, we reverse and 

remand for a resentencing hearing consistent with this opinion. 

 

 1In the sentencing part of a bifurcated jury trial, "[a]fter 

the Commonwealth has introduced . . . evidence of prior 

convictions . . . the defendant may introduce relevant, 

admissible evidence related to punishment." Code § 19.2-295.1. 
 4 

 Reversed and remanded.