COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Annunziata and Senior Judge Duff 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

CIRO ANTONIO FERRUFINO 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1930-98-4 JUDGE CHARLES H. DUFF 

 NOVEMBER 9, 1999 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY 

Thomas D. Horne, Judge 

 Jeffrey B. Rice for appellant. 

Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; 

Virginia B. Theisen, Assistant Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Ciro Antonio Ferrufino was convicted in a bench trial of 

driving while intoxicated, a third offense within ten years. On 

appeal, appellant argues that he was unlawfully arrested and 

that the trial court erred in admitting the certificate of 

analysis and denying his motion to strike the evidence. 

 The statement of facts and amendment thereto reflect that 

on November 10, 1997, Deputy DiBenedetto was responding to a 

residence when he observed appellant's truck, which was 

partially off the road and stuck in mud up to its axles. 

DiBenedetto encountered appellant at the residence and, after 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
questioning appellant and administering some field sobriety 

tests, arrested appellant for driving while intoxicated. 

DiBenedetto subsequently administered a breath test to 

appellant, which showed .21 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of 

breath. The test results were admitted into evidence. 

 The statement of facts notes that after the Commonwealth 

rested, 

[t]he Court denied the defendant's motion to 

strike, which was based on the assertion 

that Deputy DiBenedetto had no authority to 

arrest Mr. Ferrufino because the arrest for 

a misdemeanor committed out of the presence 

of an officer requires a warrant. The Court 

ruled that pursuant to Leveroni v. County of 

Arlington [18 Va. App. 626, 445 S.E.2d 723 

(1994)], the facts of this case permitted a 

warrantless arrest as authorized in 

§ 19.2-81, Code of Virginia. 

Appellant renewed his motion to strike after presenting 

evidence. 

 The record does not reflect that appellant objected to the 

certificate of analysis when it was admitted. See Lee v. Lee, 

12 Va. App. 512, 516-17, 404 S.E.2d 736, 738-39 (1991) (en banc) 

(holding that the appellant has the burden of presenting a 

sufficient record to establish that an issue was properly 

preserved for appeal). "To be timely, an objection must be made 

when the occasion arises--at the time the evidence is offered or 

the statement made." Marlowe v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 619, 

621, 347 S.E.2d 167, 168 (1986). Furthermore, "[a] litigant may 

-2-
not, in a motion to strike, raise for the first time a question 

of admissibility of evidence." Woodson v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 

285, 288, 176 S.E.2d 818, 821 (1970). 

 Appellant waived his objection to the admissibility of the 

certificate of analysis when he did not object to it when it was 

admitted into evidence. Moreover, even if we assume appellant 

preserved his challenge to the admissibility of the certificate 

of analysis, his argument that there was no "accident" fails on 

the merits. 

This Court has noted that the term 

"accident" means "an event occurring by 

chance or from unknown causes," or "an 

unfortunate event" and that "there is 

nothing inherent in the meaning of the word 

. . . that suggests that it applies only 

when a vehicle strikes or collides with a 

person or property." 

Leveroni, 18 Va. App. at 627, 445 S.E.2d at 724 (quoting Smith 

v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 109, 114, 379 S.E.2d 374, 377 

(1989)). 

 The record reflects that appellant's vehicle went far 

enough off the paved roadway to become mired in mud up to its 

axles. This constituted an "accident" for purposes of Code 

§ 19.2-81. Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it 

ruled that an accident occurred and denied appellant's motion to 

strike. 

-3-
 Appellant also contends that, because he was one hundred 

yards away from his vehicle at the time he was arrested, he was 

not arrested at the "scene" of the accident. The statement of 

facts does not reflect, however, that appellant made this 

specific argument to the trial court during his motion to 

strike. Accordingly, we will not address this issue for the 

first time on appeal. See Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 

299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998) (this Court will not 

consider an argument on appeal that was not presented to the 

trial court). 

 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court 

is affirmed. 

 Affirmed. 

-4-