COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Huff, Judges Decker and O’Brien 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

JUAN CARLOS REYES 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 1349-15-4 JUDGE MARY GRACE O’BRIEN 

 OCTOBER 25, 2016 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY 

Burke F. McCahill, Judge 

 James P. Bohnaker for appellant. 

 J. Christian Obenshain, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. 

Herring, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Following a jury trial, Juan Carlos Reyes (“appellant”) was convicted of aggravated 

malicious wounding in violation of Code § 18.2-51.2 and malicious wounding as a member of a 

mob in violation of Code § 18.2-41. The court imposed the jury’s recommended sentence of twenty 

years of incarceration for the aggravated malicious wounding and an additional five years of 

incarceration for malicious wounding as a member of a mob. Appellant asserts that his Sixth 

Amendment right was violated when the trial court prevented his co-defendant, Marcus Guevara, 

from testifying in appellant’s favor. 

BACKGROUND 

On August 23, 2014, the victim left a bar and was surrounded by approximately six men. 

They began to comment on the victim’s red clothes, and made a gang reference. One of the men 

pointed a gun at the victim. When the victim began to move away, another man, identified as 

appellant, stabbed him in the chest. The victim collapsed and was transported to the hospital where 

he underwent surgery. He sustained permanent injury and scarring as a result of the attack. 

PUBLISHED 
 - 2 - 

 While the victim was in the hospital, detectives showed him a photo array of six people, 

including appellant. The victim recognized appellant as the man who stabbed him. 

 Appellant was arrested and the matters were set for a jury trial. Two days before trial, 

appellant filed motions to continue and to compel the testimony of Marcus Guevara, a co-defendant. 

Guevara had previously entered into a plea agreement with the Commonwealth. He agreed to plead 

guilty to unlawful wounding and to waive his right against self-incrimination and testify truthfully if 

called as a witness by the Commonwealth in any other case. At the time of appellant’s trial, 

Guevara had pled guilty but had not yet been sentenced. 

 Appellant asserted that during a police interview, Guevara made exculpatory statements 

concerning appellant’s involvement in the offense; specifically, that appellant was not present when 

the crime occurred. Guevara filed a motion to quash the subpoena and invoked his Fifth 

Amendment right against self-incrimination. The court denied the motion to continue and deferred 

its ruling on the motion to compel Guevara’s testimony until the conclusion of the 

Commonwealth’s case. 

 At trial, after the Commonwealth rested and appellant called two witnesses, appellant 

renewed his motion to compel Guevara’s testimony. Outside of the presence of the jury, the court 

requested that appellant’s counsel proffer the specific questions he planned to ask Guevara, so it 

could make a question-by-question determination of whether Guevara was entitled to assert his 

Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Appellant’s counsel proffered the following 

questions: 

[H]ave you been found guilty of a charge arising [out] of the incident 

on August 23rd involving a stabbing? 
 - 3 - 

Have you, in fact, pled guilty to a reduced charge for that event?1

Were you at the scene of this incident on August the 23rd? 

Do you know [appellant]? 

Was [appellant] at the scene during the stabbing of the victim? 

If he was, what did you see him do? 

If he wasn’t, were you telling the investigators the truth when you 

were interviewed immediately after your arrest? 

 Guevara’s counsel objected to each question. The court allowed Guevara to assert his Fifth 

Amendment right and decline to testify. The court reasoned that although Guevara had pled guilty, 

he still faced exposure to increased punishment at sentencing, his potential answers could possibly 

implicate him for federal charges, and while Guevara was entitled to use immunity under Code 

§ 19.2-270, the statute did not provide for derivative use immunity. Based on these considerations, 

the court denied the motion to compel Guevara’s testimony. 

ANALYSIS 

Generally, a trial court’s exercise of discretion in determining whether to admit or exclude 

evidence is reviewed using an abuse of discretion standard. Egan v. Butler, 290 Va. 62, 69, 772 

S.E.2d 765, 770 (2015). “However, whether a defendant’s due process rights are violated by the 

admission of evidence is a question of law, to which we apply a de novo standard of review.” 

Henderson v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 318, 329, 736 S.E.2d 901, 907 (2013). In this case, 

appellant contends that the trial court’s ruling allowing Guevara to assert his Fifth Amendment right 

 1

 While the answers to the first two questions do not implicate the Fifth Amendment, 

those questions would only be relevant to lay the foundation for the following questions. In this 

context, the trial court did not err in allowing Guevara to assert his Fifth Amendment right and 

decline to testify. 
 - 4 - 

and refrain from testifying violated appellant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to call 

witnesses on his own behalf.2 Therefore, we apply a de novo standard of review. 

 The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee a 

defendant in a criminal prosecution the right “to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in 

his favor.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. However, that right must be balanced with the witness’ right 

under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which provides that “[n]o person . . . shall be 

compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend V. See also 

Va. Const. art. I, § 8 (also providing a defendant with protection against self-incrimination). In 

Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951) (citation omitted), the United States Supreme 

Court interpreted the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination as follows: 

 The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that 

would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal 

statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the 

chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a . . . crime. 

But this protection must be confined to instances where the witness 

has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer. 

 The Supreme Court has held that a defendant has “no right to compel . . . his co-defendant[] 

to testify . . . if [the co-defendant] elected to invoke his right against self-incrimination guaranteed 

by the Fifth Amendment to the federal Constitution.” Dearing v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 117, 

122, 524 S.E.2d 121, 124 (2000). See also United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 126-27 

(1980) (absent grant of immunity, witness has privilege against compulsory self-incrimination). 

 However, the “simple invocation of the right by a witness does not end the responsibilities 

of the trial court in resolving the conflict between the protection of the witness and a defendant’s 

 2

 Appellant also argues that the court could have “exercised its judicial authority to grant use 

immunity to [Guevara].” However, we note that appellant never requested that the court grant 

Guevara any type of immunity during the trial, and he did not specifically object to the court’s 

failure to grant Guevara use immunity. Accordingly, he may not raise this objection for the first 

time on appeal. See Rule 5A:18. 
 - 5 - 

right to present evidence.” Carter v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 735, 748, 576 S.E.2d 773, 779 

(2003). The trial court must consider whether a proffered question has an incriminating implication 

and, if so, “the privilege rests with the witness and its assertion must be honored by the court.” 

Gosling v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 158, 166, 415 S.E.2d 870, 874 (1992). 

 As we explained in Carter, a trial court must make the determination by considering the 

proffered questions because “the [F]ifth [A]mendment does not provide a blanket right to refuse to 

answer any questions.” 39 Va. App. at 747, 576 S.E.2d at 779 (quoting Cunningham v. 

Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 358, 361-62, 344 S.E.2d 389, 391 (1986)). There is no requirement 

that the witness volunteer an answer; otherwise “he would be compelled to surrender the very 

protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee.” Id. at 748, 576 S.E.2d at 779 (quoting 

Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486-87). The court must therefore make the determination, question by 

question, whether a witness may invoke his right against self-incrimination. Carter, 39 Va. App. at 

751, 576 S.E.2d at 781. See also N. Am. Mortg. v. Pomponio, 219 Va. 914, 252 S.E.2d 345 (1979). 

 The court followed this procedure in the present case. Pursuant to Carter, the court properly 

asked counsel outside of the presence of the jury to proffer each specific question that appellant 

planned to ask Guevara in order to determine whether Guevara could invoke his privilege for that 

question. Counsel proffered numerous questions relating to Guevara’s guilty plea to unlawful 

wounding and his statement to the police that appellant was not present at the scene of the crime. 

The court analyzed each question individually and found that the questions could still implicate 

Guevara despite his plea of guilty to unlawful wounding. 

 The court noted that Guevara had not yet been sentenced and faced additional exposure 

during sentencing if he answered the questions. As the Supreme Court of the United States held, 

“[if] the sentence has not yet been imposed a defendant may have a legitimate fear of adverse 

consequences from further testimony.” Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 326 (1999). 
 - 6 - 

Further, the court accepted Guevara’s argument that some of the proffered questions and subsequent 

potential cross-examination could expose him to federal prosecution for gang activity. 

 For the reasons stated, we find that the court properly balanced appellant’s Sixth 

Amendment right to compel evidence in his favor against the witness’ Fifth Amendment right to be 

free from self-incrimination and we affirm the judgment of the court granting the motion to quash 

the subpoena for Guevara. 

Affirmed.