Case Name: Jeffery Andrew CRAWFORD, s/k/a Jeffrey Crawford, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 2001-05-15
Citations: 35 Va. App. 438
Docket Number: Record No. 0683-99-1
Parties: Jeffery Andrew CRAWFORD, s/k/a Jeffrey Crawford, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Court of Appeals Courts
Volume: 35
Pages: 438–442

Head Matter:
546 S.E.2d 207
Jeffery Andrew CRAWFORD, s/k/a Jeffrey Crawford, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.
Record No. 0683-99-1.
Court of Appeals of Virginia.
May 15, 2001.
Jonathan W. Gatewood, King William, for appellant.
Kathleen B. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Before: FITZPATRICK, C.J., and BENTON, WILLIS, ELDER, BRAY, ANNUNZIATA, BUMGARDNER, FRANK, HUMPHREYS, CLEMENTS and AGEE, JJ.

Opinion:
UPON A REHEARING EN BANC
On September 19, 2001, a divided panel of this Court reversed the appellant's convictions. Crawford v. Commonwealth, 33 Va.App. 431, 534 S.E.2d 332 (2000). We granted the Commonwealth's petition for rehearing en banc.
Upon rehearing en banc, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed on the ground that the appellant did not raise in the trial court the basis for the objection he argues on appeal. Rule 5A:18; McLean v. Commonwealth, 30 Va.App. 322, 329, 516 S.E.2d 717, 720 (1999) (en banc). At trial, the appellant conceded the proposed DNA instruction was an accurate statement of the law, but objected on the ground that it instructed the jury on the "propriety" of the DNA evidence as a matter of law. He did not proffer an alternative instruction, did not offer any alternative language, and did not specify his objection. On appeal, the appellant argues the instruction was improper because it unduly emphasized the DNA evidence, contained permissive language, and required the jury to make a distinction they were unqualified to make. Accordingly, the opinion previously rendered by a panel of this Court on is withdrawn and the mandate entered on that date is vacated. The appellant shall pay to the Commonwealth of Virginia thirty dollars damages.
Chief Judge Fitzpatrick concurs in the result but finds the issue properly preserved and would affirm for the reasons stated in the panel dissent.