COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Bray and Annunziata 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

DUANE SCOTT BOYCE

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1463-99-4 CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK 

 JUNE 27, 2000 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STAFFORD COUNTY 

James W. Haley, Jr., Judge 

 Elwood Earl Sanders, Jr., Appellate Defender 

(Public Defender Commission, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 Richard B. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 

 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

 Duane Scott Boyce (appellant) was convicted in a jury trial 

of six felonies, including attempted capital murder, breaking and 

entering with the intent to commit murder, use of a firearm in 

the commission of attempted murder, attempted robbery, possession 

of a firearm by a convicted felon, and breaking and entering. On 

appeal, he argues that he was denied his constitutional right to 

confront the witnesses against him when the trial court denied 

his request to impeach a Commonwealth witness with evidence of 

the witness' prior juvenile felonies. Because we conclude that 

appellant did not properly preserve his constitutional challenge 

under Rule 5A:18, appellant's convictions are affirmed. 
 Prior to trial, the Commonwealth filed a motion in limine to 

preclude defense counsel from cross-examining Douglas Shields, 

one of the co-defendants and a witness for the Commonwealth, 

about his juvenile adjudications, in an attempt to impeach his 

general credibility. Shields was nineteen at the time of 

appellant's trial. Following argument, the trial court concluded 

that defense counsel could not question Shields about his 

juvenile adjudications. However, the trial court allowed defense 

counsel to introduce evidence that Shields had pled guilty to 

four felonies involved in this case. 

 On appeal, appellant contends that he was denied his 

constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. He 

conceded in his petition for appeal that he did not raise the 

Confrontation Clause argument in the trial court. However, he 

argues that the issue was properly preserved because the 

Commonwealth's motion was based upon a Confrontation Clause case 

and defense counsel relied upon another circuit court case that 

mentioned the Confrontation Clause. We disagree. 

 Rule 5A:18 provides, in pertinent part: 

No ruling of the trial court . . . will be 

considered as a basis for reversal unless 

the objection was stated together with the 

grounds therefor at the time of the ruling, 

except for good cause shown or to enable the 

Court of Appeals to attain the ends of 

justice. 

"The primary function of Rule 5A:18 is to alert the trial judge 

to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue 

intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid 

 2
unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials." Martin v. 

Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 524, 530, 414 S.E.2d 401, 404 (1992). 

 In the present case, defense counsel did not raise the 

Confrontation Clause challenge in any of the proceedings below 

and, thus, he is barred from raising it for the first time on 

appeal. See Rule 5A:18. Contrary to appellant's argument, the 

mere reference to a case decision is insufficient to properly 

preserve the issue. "A case can often be cited for numerous 

propositions, and the trial court is not required to determine 

sua sponte what argument a party may be entitled to make under a 

given case." Morgen Indus., Inc. v. Vaughan, 252 Va. 60, 67, 471 

S.E.2d 489, 494 (1996) (applying Rule 5:25). 

 Additionally, we find no reasons to invoke the "ends of 

justice" exception to Rule 5A:18. "[T]he ends of justice 

exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly . . . ." Brown 

v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 126, 132, 380 S.E.2d 8, 11 (1989). 

"In order to avail oneself of the exception, a defendant must 

affirmatively show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, 

not that a miscarriage might have occurred." Redman v. 

Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 221, 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997). 

Here, appellant concedes that his trial counsel did not raise the 

Confrontation Clause argument in the trial court. Our review of 

the record does not show affirmatively that a miscarriage of 

justice occurred and, therefore, provides insufficient grounds 

for invocation of the ends of justice exception. Accordingly, 

appellant's convictions are affirmed.

 Affirmed. 

 3
 4