COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Bray and Annunziata 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

EDWARD ALEXANDER BECKFORD, JR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1976-99-2 JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA 

 MAY 30, 2000 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LANCASTER COUNTY 

Joseph E. Spruill, Jr., Judge 

(Robert L. Cunningham, on brief), for appellant. 

Appellant submitting on brief. 

Robert H. Anderson, III, Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, 

on brief), for appellee. 

On April 29, 1999, Edward Beckford and Andre Noel were 

tried jointly on various charges stemming from a drug 

distribution conspiracy in Lancaster County. Beckford was 

convicted in the bench trial of conspiracy to distribute 

cocaine, distribution of cocaine, possession of cocaine with 

intent to distribute, and transportation of cocaine. Beckford 

contends that the trial court erred 1) in admitting a written 

out-of-court statement of Faith Parker, a co-conspirator; 2) in 

admitting oral out-of-court statements made by Parker; and 3) in 

admitting the weight of imitation replicas of cocaine "cookies" 

 

 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
- 2 - 

as demonstrative evidence. We find that Beckford has failed to 

preserve his claims for appeal, and affirm the convictions. 

FACTS

In the summer of 1998, the Lancaster County Sheriff's 

Department began an investigation of a drug trafficking 

conspiracy involving a group of individuals calling themselves 

the "Jersey Boys." These individuals were suspected of 

trafficking in "crack" cocaine and distributing it in Lancaster 

County. Ashby Allen, Jr., Chief Investigator for the Sheriff's 

Department, and Investigator Joan Webb headed the investigation. 

Webb hired a paid informant, Mary Beale, to conduct controlled 

purchases of cocaine from the Jersey Boys. On September 9, 

1998, Allen and Webb went to Beale's apartment in Kilmarnock, 

where Beale placed a telephone call to Arthur Fisher, one of the 

Jersey Boys. Allen and Webb hid in Beale's bedroom when Fisher 

arrived. Beale and Fisher discussed a purchase of drugs, and 

Fisher made several telephone calls. On the telephone Fisher 

spoke to "Marquis" and "Dre"; one of Beckford's aliases was 

Marquis Givins. After making the telephone calls, Fisher left 

the apartment, but soon returned, accompanied by Beckford's 

codefendant, Noel, nicknamed "Dre." Allen and Webb overheard 

Beale, Fisher, and Noel negotiating the drug sale. After Fisher 

and Noel left the apartment, the officers recovered a substance 

from Beale later determined to be cocaine. 
- 3 - 

Fisher testified for the Commonwealth. He admitted that he 

sold cocaine to Beale on the evening of the controlled purchase 

and that he had purchased the cocaine in question from Noel. 

Fisher further testified that he had first encountered the 

Jersey Boys in the summer of 1998 and that members of the group 

included Noel, Beckford, Keith Mayweather, and Daniel Ford. 

Fisher stated that all of the Jersey Boys lived together in a 

house on Kilmarnock Road. 

Francis Norris also testified. Norris owns a house in 

Merry Point, located in Lancaster County, which he rented to 

Faith Parker in the summer of 1998. While cutting the grass at 

the house, Norris discovered a large rock of cocaine hidden 

beneath a board near the house. Disturbed by the discovery, 

Norris destroyed the rock of cocaine and evicted Parker. Parker 

told Norris that the cocaine did not belong to her, but belonged 

to Daniel Ford. Parker told Norris that she was afraid of Ford 

and his associates, and she gave Norris a telephone number where 

he could contact them. Norris phoned Ford, and asked whether 

the cocaine was his. Ford initially denied the cocaine belonged 

to him, but when Norris told him he had destroyed it, Ford said 

the drugs were "part of his job" and demanded payment for its 

value. 

Investigator Allen testified that on October 14, 1998, 

Parker offered a written statement at the Lancaster County 
- 4 - 

Sheriff's office. Parker was not under arrest at that time. 

She stated that she had known the Jersey Boys, whom she 

identified as Noel, Ford, Beckford (whom she identified by his 

alias "Marquis Givins"), and Mayweather (whom she identified as 

"Keith Grant") since February, 1998. She knew they sold drugs. 

She stated that she accompanied them on an unspecified date to 

Ford's home in Newark, New Jersey, to pick up cocaine. The four 

men dropped her off in Newark and proceeded to New York. When 

they returned to Newark, Parker saw them package the cocaine, 

storing it in the gear shift mechanism of the car for the return 

trip to Virginia. Parker further stated that she accompanied 

Ford and an individual named George on a second trip to New 

Jersey in August, 1998 and that they obtained cocaine there. 

She stated that in September, 1998, members of the ring stored 

cocaine at her house, which Norris subsequently found and 

destroyed. She stated that Ford called her and demanded the 

monetary value of the destroyed cocaine and that Beckford and 

Mayweather "wanted to hurt me or Mr. Norris." The statement was 

admitted into evidence over the objection of counsel for both 

defendants. 

Allen further testified, over objection by Noel's counsel, 

that in addition to her written statement, Parker described the 

cocaine purchased by the Jersey Boys for distribution in 

Lancaster County as "cookies." By this term, Parker meant 
- 5 - 

 

"large pieces of crack cocaine." Because Allen was previously 

unfamiliar with this term for rock cocaine, he questioned Parker 

in detail about the "cookies." She described them as "about the 

size of a personal pan pizza," and said that in one trip, the 

ring brought back "four or five" such "cookies," which were 

approximately four and one-half inches in diameter and 

one-fourth of an inch in thickness. Parker stated that the ring 

members paid approximately $8,000 for the "cookies" in question. 

Parker admitted that once the cocaine was packaged, she boarded 

a bus with it and brought it to Virginia.1

Allen testified additionally that, based upon Parker's 

description of the "cookies," he created a model of a "cookie" 

from dental stone, a substance used by the police to make 

castings of footprints and tool marks. He presented the model 

to Parker, and she told him it was "the exact size and weight" 

of the "cookies" she transported from New Jersey to Virginia. 

Allen then weighed the model, and determined its weight to be 

148.5 grams. The Commonwealth offered the model into evidence. 

The model was admitted over objection by Noel, who based his 

objection on the ground that the model was "a result of 

1

 Investigator Webb's testimony substantially matched that 

of Investigator Allen concerning the statements made by Parker. 

Counsel for Noel objected to Webb's recital of Parker's 

statements, stating he "would have the same objection as 

before." Counsel for Beckford raised no objection, however, and 

did not join in Noel's objection. 
- 6 - 

hearsay." Beckford "join[ed] in the objection." The court 

admitted the model. 

ANALYSIS

Beckford has failed to preserve his claims for appeal. 

While Noel objected to Investigator Allen's recounting of the 

oral statements made by Parker, Beckford did not. Although 

Beckford objected to the admission of Parker's written statement 

during the direct examination of Investigator Allen, when 

Investigator Webb later testified and recounted the content of 

Parker's statement, Noel renewed his earlier objection, but 

Beckford failed to do so. Also, when Beckford joined in Noel's 

objection to the admissibility of the model "cookie," he did so 

on the ground that it was the result of hearsay; his claim on 

appeal concerns whether a sufficient foundation was laid. 

Because Rule 5A:18 provides that "[n]o 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 

attain the ends of justice," Beckford's failure to object to 

Parker's oral out-of-court statements bars his claim on this 

issue. See People v. Foster, 473 N.Y.S.2d 978, 984 (N.Y. 1984) 

(in a joint trial, codefendants "cannot avail themselves of 

their [codefendant's] objection"); Wolfe v. East Texas Seed Co., 

583 S.W.2d 481, 482 (Tx. App. 1979) (appellant who failed to 
- 7 - 

make objection at trial cannot avail himself of codefendant's 

objection to preserve issue for appeal); Poston v. Ragan, 187 

S.E.2d 503, 505 (N.C. App. 1972) (a party is not entitled to the 

benefit of an exception not taken by himself, and therefore 

exception taken by one party is not available to a co-party). 

Moreover, when a party objects to the admissibility of 

material offered as evidence, and the same material is 

subsequently offered as evidence, failure to restate the 

objection constitutes a waiver of the previous objection. See

Phillip Greenberg, Inc. v. Dunville, 166 Va. 398, 404, 185 S.E. 

892, 894 (1936); Portner v. Portner's Ex'rs, 133 Va. 251, 263, 

112 S.E. 762, 766 (1922); C & O Ry. Co. v. Greaver, 110 Va. 350, 

354, 66 S.E. 59, 60 (1909). Thus, Beckford's failure during the 

testimony of Investigator Webb to renew his earlier objection to 

the admission of Parker's written statement effected a waiver of 

the prior objection. 

Finally, although Beckford properly joined in Noel's 

objection to the model "cookie" on the ground that its admission 

was the result of improperly admitted hearsay evidence, Beckford 

bases his argument on appeal on the Commonwealth's failure to 

properly establish that the model constituted "illustrative 

evidence" of the nature of the cocaine "cookies" transported by 

Parker. Because Beckford did not object to the evidence on this 

ground, and we find no basis to apply either the good cause or 
- 8 - 

ends of justice exceptions to the Rule, we will not consider the 

argument on appeal. See Singleton v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 

728, 735, 453 S.E.2d 921, 926 (1995) (en banc); Reed v. 

Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 65, 70, 366 S.E.2d 274, 277 (1988). 

Beckford has thus failed to preserve his claims for appeal, and 

we consider them no further. 

 Affirmed.