COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick,* Judge Elder and 

 Senior Judge Duff 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

HEP BUI 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION** BY 

v. Record No. 1608-96-4 JUDGE CHARLES H. DUFF 

 DECEMBER 30, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

Robert W. Wooldridge, Jr., Judge 

 Rachel A. Daum (Peter D. Greenspun & 

Associates, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. 

 Kathleen B. Martin, Assistant Attorney 

General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Hep Bui, appellant, was convicted by a jury of robbery. In 

this appeal, we must decide whether the trial court erred in 

admitting evidence regarding the Tri Binh Nguyen group and 

appellant's unrelated prior acts with the group. We hold that 

because appellant failed to object to questioning of defense 

witnesses regarding the Tri Binh Nguyen group, this issue in not 

properly before us. Moreover, the trial court did not err by 

allowing the prosecutor to present rebuttal evidence concerning 

the group to impeach appellant's alibi witnesses. Accordingly, 

we affirm. 

 

 *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 

Background

 On October 28, 1995, twelve-year-old Steven Thach was 

watching television when appellant knocked on his apartment door. 

 When Thach asked who was there, appellant responded, "Mike." 

Thach opened the door, and appellant said, "I have something for 

your mom. Can you hold it?" As Thach agreed to hold the 

package, appellant pushed Thach down, held a gun to his head, and 

said, "Don't move or I'll blow your head off." Appellant took 

Thach into the bathroom, bound and gagged him, and put a mask 

over Thach's head. 

 Thach heard appellant and three or four other men speaking 

Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Spanish while they ransacked the 

apartment. Thach heard the word "Sago," the name of Thach's 

mother's ex-boyfriend and the father of Thach's baby brother. 

Appellant and his companions stole ten bottles of wine, jewelry, 

two cameras, a cellular telephone, and a VCR. 

 Appellant filed a motion in limine to preclude the 

Commonwealth from admitting or referring to evidence of 

appellant's similar cases and to appellant's gang affiliations, 

arguing that this information had no probative value, or that any 

probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial value. In a 

hearing on that motion, the court ruled that questions regarding 

"gang" membership would be relevant to the witnesses' 

credibility, but agreed to deal with the issues "one by one" as 
 3 

 

they arose.1

 During the trial, the prosecutor cross-examined Lan Cao, 

Hoang Le, and Hung Pham about their knowledge of the Tri Binh 

Nguyen group. Appellant did not object to these questions. 

These witnesses denied any knowledge of the group. During 

cross-examination, Le Huu Le testified that neither he nor 

appellant associated with this group, and he denied knowledge of 

incidents involving the group at Café Lien and at Eden Center. 

Appellant did not object to these questions. 

 The trial court then called a recess and asked how these 

inquiries were relevant to the case. The prosecutor explained 

that she intended to show that the witnesses were biased. The 

court allowed the prosecutor to continue this line of 

questioning, and again noted that there had been no objection 

upon which he could rule. The trial judge said he would consider 

appellant's comments during the discussion as an objection. At 

this point, appellant asked for a continuing objection to this 

line of questioning. 

 Le Huu Le continued his testimony, acknowledging that he had 

been at the Willston complex in August of 1995 when Detective 

Edgar Lancaster arrived. Le Huu Le denied that the Willston 

complex was a "hangout pad" for the Tri Binh Nguyen group and 

 1The record reflects that the trial judge exercised 

commendable care to insure that the evidence was sanitized so as 

to avoid the use of inflammatory language; e.g., he directed that 

the word "group" replace "gang." 
 4 

denied that he had ever heard of "Tri's boys." 

 The prosecutor called Lancaster as a rebuttal witness. In 

response to appellant's objection, the trial judge stated that he 

assumed that the prosecutor was using Lancaster to impeach 

defense witnesses' testimony who, without objection, had 

testified that they had no knowledge of the Tri Binh Nguyen 

group. Appellant's counsel agreed that such testimony was 

appropriate regarding the witnesses, but argued that it was 

inappropriate as to appellant. The trial court ruled that "if 

the Defendant calls as a witness on his behalf someone with whom 

the Commonwealth believes the Defendant has a relationship that 

may affect that witness's willingness to tell the truth, I think 

the Commonwealth, as any party would be, is entitled to go into 

that." 

 Lancaster testified that he was familiar with the Tri Binh 

Nguyen group through his police work. Lancaster knew Le Huu Le 

and observed him with appellant and others at Eden Center, Café 

Lien, and the Willston complex. Lancaster knew from police 

reports, personal observations, informants, and other sources 

that Le Huu Le associated with the Tri Binh Nguyen group. 

Analysis

 "In order to be considered on appeal, an objection must be 

timely made and the grounds stated with specificity. Rule 5A:18. 

 To be timely, an objection must be made when the occasion arises 

-- at the time the evidence is offered or the statement made." 
 5 

Marlowe v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 619, 621, 347 S.E.2d 167, 168 

(1986) (citation omitted). 

 On appellant's motion in limine, the court ruled that the 

evidence regarding the Tri Binh Nguyen group could be appropriate 

regarding a witness' credibility, but that the court would deal 

with this issue as it arose during trial. However, appellant did 

not object when the prosecutor asked each of four defense 

witnesses whether he or she had any knowledge of the Tri Binh 

Nguyen group. Each of these witnesses denied any knowledge of 

the Tri Binh Nguyen group. Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our 

consideration on appeal of whether the trial court erred in 

admitting evidence of the Tri Binh Nguyen group. Moreover, the 

record does not reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or 

ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18. 

 Moreover, the Commonwealth was entitled to refute 

appellant's alibi by showing that the alibi witnesses were not 

worthy of belief. "The bias of a witness, based on a previous 

relationship with a party to the case, is always a relevant 

subject of cross-examination." Goins v. Commonwealth, 251 Va. 

442, 465, 470 S.E.2d 114, 129, cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 222 

(1996). See Kirk v. Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 291, 298-99, 464 

S.E.2d 162, 166 (1995) (because opponent can elicit "anything 

tending to show the bias" of a witness, evidence that defendant's 

alibi witness was his homosexual lover was admissible to 

establish witness' motive for testifying). Where evidence of 
 6 

specific acts of misconduct "is relevant to show that a witness 

is biased or has a motive to fabricate, it is not collateral and 

should be admitted." Banks v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 959, 

963-64, 434 S.E.2d 681, 683-84 (1993). Therefore, attacking the 

credibility of the alibi witnesses by demonstrating their bias in 

favor of appellant was permissible impeachment. 

 Alibi witness Le Huu Le had denied any knowledge of the 

incident at Café Lien or at Eden Center. He admitted being 

present at the Willston complex incident, but denied that the 

area was frequented by the Tri Binh Nguyen group. Le Huu Le 

denied meeting appellant through that group or that he or 

appellant associated with members of that group. The trial court 

did not err in allowing Lancaster to testify that he had observed 

Le Huu Le and appellant at specific times at the three specific 

places. The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of 

appellant's relationship with his alibi witness and the Tri Binh 

Nguyen group at Eden Center, Café Lien, and the Willston complex. 

 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the 

trial court. 

 Affirmed.