Title: Commonwealth v. Amos
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 130757
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: February 27, 2014

Present:  Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and 
McClanahan, JJ., and Lacy, S.J. 
 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
v.  Record No. 130757 
 
 
OPINION BY SENIOR JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    ELIZABETH B. LACY 
FELECIA AMOS 
 
 
 
 
    February 27, 2014 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
In this appeal we consider whether the Court of Appeals 
erred in holding that the contemporaneous objection exception in 
Code § 8.01-384(A) allows a litigant who was precluded by the 
trial court from asserting a contemporaneous objection to the 
court’s ruling or order to raise the issue on appeal, 
notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 5A:18. 
 
 
 
 
I.  BACKGROUND 
 
In July 2010, Antonio Jose Amos was convicted in the 
Circuit Court of Arlington County of assaulting his estranged 
wife, Felecia Amos.  Mr. Amos was sentenced to six months’ 
incarceration, suspended for one year conditioned on good 
behavior, and ordered, as relevant here, to have no contact with 
Felecia Amos and to not harass her. 
Three months later, in October 2010, Ms. Amos wrote a 
letter to an Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney for Arlington 
County alleging that Mr. Amos had harassed her through telephone 
calls and text messages and that he had threatened her during 
two custody exchanges of their son.  She alleged that Mr. Amos’ 
2 
actions violated the terms of his probation and that she was 
seeking help from the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office because she 
was “in fear of [her] life.”  Based on this letter, the 
Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney sought and obtained a rule to 
show cause against Mr. Amos. 
 
At the hearing on the show cause order, Ms. Amos testified, 
among other things, that during a particular custody exchange 
Mr. Amos harassed and threatened her, used profanity against 
her, told her she was “going down,” and followed her in his car 
when she left the premises.  Her testimony was contradicted by 
the testimony of Mr. Amos and another individual who had 
accompanied him to the custody exchange.  The trial court also 
heard a tape recording of the incident made by Mr. Amos that was 
consistent with Mr. Amos’ testimony.  The Commonwealth provided 
no rebuttal testimony or other evidence. 
 
The trial court ruled that Mr. Amos had not violated the 
terms and conditions of his probation and dismissed the rule to 
show cause.  The trial judge then stated that he was “not 
through.”  He called Ms. Amos to “[s]tand in front of [the] 
podium” and told her that she had “flat-out lied under oath,” 
was “nothing but a vindictive woman towards [Mr. Amos],” and 
that she was not going to “use this process to further that 
vindictiveness.”  The trial judge then summarily held Ms. Amos 
in contempt of court pursuant to Code § 18.2-456, sentenced her 
3 
to jail for ten days, remanded her into custody, and called the 
next case.  Ms. Amos was immediately taken to jail.  She did not 
object or make any statements to the trial judge at the time of 
the contempt ruling on June 10, 2011. 
On June 27, 2011, Ms. Amos, pro se, filed a “MOTION TO 
VACATE SENTENCE AND OBJECT TO THIS HONORABLE COURT['S] FINDING.”  
Ms. Amos argued that she testified truthfully, was never given 
an opportunity to object to the trial court’s finding of 
contempt, that the trial court deprived her of her 
constitutional rights to due process, and that her conduct did 
not require summary punishment because it was not an open, 
serious threat to orderly procedure.  Ms. Amos simultaneously 
filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.  
No hearing was held or ruling issued on Ms. Amos’ pro se motion. 
 
In her petition for appeal to the Court of Appeals, Ms. 
Amos assigned error to the trial court’s order of conviction, 
asserting that there was insufficient evidence to support the 
summary contempt conviction and that her constitutional due 
process rights were violated.  The Commonwealth contended that 
Ms. Amos failed to preserve the issues she raised on appeal 
because she did not object at the time the trial court held her 
in contempt and she did not get a ruling on her motion for 
reconsideration or show that the trial court was made aware of 
4 
her arguments as required by Rule 5A:18 and Brandon v. Cox, 284 
Va. 251, 736 S.E.2d 695 (2012). 
 
The Court of Appeals en banc reversed Ms. Amos’ summary 
contempt conviction and entered final judgment in a 6-5 
decision.  Amos v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 730, 740 S.E.2d 43 
(2013).  The majority concluded that the trial court deprived 
Ms. Amos of any opportunity to object at the time of the ruling 
and 
[t]he fact that the trial court never ruled on her 
motion to reconsider or was not made aware of it 
does not foreclose appellate review of Mrs. Amos’s 
arguments.  This conclusion is driven by a plain 
language reading of Code § 8.01-384(A), that the 
absence of such an opportunity to object “shall 
not thereafter prejudice [a party] . . . on 
appeal.” 
 
Id. at 737, 741, 740 S.E.2d at 46-47, 49. 
   
 
The Commonwealth appealed to this Court, assigning error to 
that part of the Court of Appeals’ judgment holding that 
pursuant to Code § 8.01-384(A) Ms. Amos did not default the 
arguments raised on appeal.  The Commonwealth did not assign 
error to the Court of Appeals’ holding that Ms. Amos was denied 
the opportunity to object at the time of the summary contempt 
ruling or the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the summary contempt 
conviction. 
 
 
 
 
II.  ANALYSIS 
5 
 
This appeal requires us to construe relevant provisions of 
Code § 8.01-384(A).  Issues of statutory construction are 
questions of law which we review de novo.  Jay v. Commonwealth, 
275 Va. 510, 517, 659 S.E.2d 311, 315 (2008).  We apply the 
plain meaning of the language appearing in the statute unless it 
is ambiguous or applying the plain language leads to an absurd 
result.  Baker v. Commonwealth, 284 Va. 572, 576, 733 S.E.2d 
642, 644 (2012). 
 
Code § 8.01-384(A) addresses the various actions that a 
party may take to preserve an issue or argument for assertion on 
appeal.1  It also contains an exception to the contemporaneous 
objection requirement which provides: 
                                                 
1Code § 8.01-384(A) provides as follows: 
  
Formal exceptions to rulings or orders of the court 
shall be unnecessary; but for all purposes for which 
an exception has heretofore been necessary, it shall 
be sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or 
order of the court is made or sought, makes known to 
the court the action which he desires the court to 
take or his objections to the action of the court and 
his grounds therefor; and, if a party has no 
opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time 
it is made, the absence of an objection shall not 
thereafter prejudice him on motion for a new trial or 
on appeal.  No party, after having made an objection 
or motion known to the court, shall be required to 
make such objection or motion again in order to 
preserve his right to appeal, challenge, or move for 
reconsideration of, a ruling, order, or action of the 
court.  No party shall be deemed to have agreed to, or 
acquiesced in, any written order of a trial court so 
as to forfeit his right to contest such order on 
 
6 
if a party has no opportunity to object to a 
ruling or order at the time it is made, the 
absence of an objection shall not thereafter 
prejudice him on motion for a new trial or on 
appeal. 
 
Id. 
 
The Commonwealth argues that although Code § 8.01-384(A) 
may excuse the requirement of a contemporaneous objection, it 
does not immunize the litigant from affording the trial court an 
opportunity to rule on his objection at a later point in the 
proceeding and obtaining a ruling on that objection under Rule 
5A:18 and Nusbaum v. Berlin, 273 Va. 385, 406-07, 641 S.E.2d 
494, 505-06 (2007).  We disagree. 
The plain language of the contemporaneous objection  
exception in Code § 8.01-384(A) states that when the litigant, 
through no fault of his own, is prevented from making a 
contemporaneous objection to the court’s ruling or order, the 
failure to object “shall not thereafter prejudice” the litigant 
on appeal.  (Emphasis added.)  This language is clear and 
unqualified.  The statute imposes no requirement that when the 
contemporaneous objection exception applies, a party, if able, 
                                                                                                                                                             
appeal except by express written agreement in his 
endorsement of the order.  Arguments made at trial via 
written pleading, memorandum, recital of objections in 
a final order, oral argument reduced to transcript, or 
agreed written statements of facts shall, unless 
expressly withdrawn or waived, be deemed preserved 
therein for assertion on appeal. 
7 
must file a post-conviction objection or otherwise bring the 
objection to the court’s attention at a later point in the 
proceedings as the Commonwealth argues.  To adopt the 
Commonwealth’s position would require us to add language to the 
statute.  This Court may not construe the plain language of a 
statute “in a manner that amounts to holding that the General 
Assembly meant to add a requirement to the statute that it did 
not actually express.”  Vaughn, Inc. v. Beck, 262 Va. 673, 679, 
554 S.E.2d 88, 91 (2001).  Nor may the Court “‘add language to 
[a] statute [that] the General Assembly has not seen fit to 
include.’”  Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 
284 Va. 726, 741, 735 S.E.2d 684, 691 (2012)(quoting Jackson v. 
Fidelity & Deposit Co., 269 Va. 303, 313, 608 S.E.2d 901, 906 
(2005) and Holsapple v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 593, 599, 587 
S.E.2d 561, 564-65 (2003)). 
We agree with the Court of Appeals’ observation that a 
person who had no opportunity to object at the time a ruling is 
made 
may be able to and may choose to file a motion to 
reconsider.  It may even be wise to do so.  Such a 
step, however, is not required under Code § 8.01-
384(A) in order to preserve an issue for appellate 
review. 
 
Amos, 61 Va. App. at 740, 740 S.E.2d at 48. 
Contrary to the Commonwealth’s argument, Rule 5A:18 does 
not require a different result.  Rule 5A:18 and our case law 
8 
requiring an issue to be presented to the court for 
determination as a predicate for appellate review focuses on the 
actions of the litigant.  See, e.g., Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 
279 Va. 422, 437-39, 689 S.E.2d 716, 724-25 (2010)(explaining 
that the purpose of Rule 5:25 is to afford the trial court with 
an opportunity to rule intelligently on issues presented by a 
party and that under the facts presented, the defendants 
satisfied such purpose by stating objections and grounds 
therefor in a motion to stay);2 Brown v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 
210, 217-18, 688 S.E.2d 185, 189-90 (2010)(concluding 
Commonwealth made position known to trial court, thus providing 
it with an opportunity to rule on that position); George v. 
Commonwealth, 276 Va. 767, 773-74, 667 S.E.2d 779, 782 
(2008)(holding defendant put court on sufficient notice of 
position); Weidman v. Babcock, 241 Va. 40, 44, 400 S.E.2d 164, 
167 (1991)(finding plaintiffs preserved issues for appeal in 
hearing and motion to rehear); Jackson v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. 
Co., 179 Va. 642, 651, 20 S.E.2d 489, 492 (1942)(holding party 
must state objection and grounds in such a manner that the trial 
judge can understand the question to be decided).  When failure 
                                                 
 
2This Court has previously noted that Rule 5:25 is the 
“counterpart” to Rule 5A:18, and that Code § 8.01-384(A), which 
“controls” the interpretation of Rule 5:25, “likewise inform[s 
the] interpretation of Rule 5A:18.”  Brown v. Commonwealth, 279 
Va. 210, 217, 688 S.E.2d 185, 189 (2010)(citing Helms v. 
Manspile, 277 Va. 1, 7, 671 S.E.2d 127, 130 (2009)). 
9 
to raise a contemporaneous objection or otherwise bring an 
objection to the court's attention results from a party’s 
actions, the contemporaneous objection exception of Code § 8.01-
384(A) does not apply, and the preservation issue will be 
decided under the provisions of Rule 5A:18 or Rule 5:25, and 
case law applying those rules.  However, when a party is denied 
the opportunity to raise a contemporaneous objection, the 
contemporaneous objection exception of Code § 8.01-384(A) 
applies. 
Finally, Nusbaum, the case upon which the Commonwealth 
relies, is not dispositive of this case.  In Nusbaum, the 
appellant repeatedly brought his objection to the attention of 
the trial court but also repeatedly asked the trial court not to 
rule on his objection and affirmatively stated that he was not 
asking the court to change its rulings.  273 Va. at 404, 641 
S.E.2d at 504.  On appeal, the appellant argued that because he 
objected to the trial court’s rulings and later made the trial 
court aware of the substance of his objection to the contempt 
order orally and as an objection to the final order, he “did all 
that was required” to preserve the issue for appeal under Code § 
8.01-384(A).  Id. at 402, 641 S.E.2d at 503.  The Commonwealth 
argued that the issue was not preserved because Rule 5:25 
required the appellant to seek a ruling on his due process 
objections.  Id. 
10 
We rejected the application of Code § 8.01-384(A) in the 
manner suggested by the appellant in Nusbaum, noting that the 
case did not involve a situation where the court denied the 
appellant an opportunity to raise a contemporaneous objection as 
envisioned by the contemporaneous objection exception of Code § 
8.01-384(A).  Id. at 406, 641 S.E.2d at 505.  Consequently, the 
litigant was not entitled to the benefit of the exception and we 
rendered no opinion on its application.  We applied Rule 5:25 
and concluded that, under the circumstances of that case, the 
due process issue was not preserved for appeal because the 
appellant failed to secure a ruling on his objection.  Id. 
The unusual circumstances of this case demonstrate why an 
exception of this nature is warranted.  Here, Ms. Amos was not a 
party.  Rather, she was only a witness and consequently was not 
represented by counsel.  Following the trial judge’s ruling, she 
was immediately taken to jail without any further consideration 
by the court.  Furthermore, Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 
___, ___ S.E.2d ___, (2014)(this day decided) and this case are 
the first cases that require us to consider the application of 
this statutory exception.  The paucity of cases that have 
invoked the contemporaneous objection exception during the past 
40 years demonstrates that litigants are rarely precluded from 
making contemporaneous objections to orders or rulings of the 
court.  Nevertheless, the exception is appropriate when 
11 
circumstances such as those in this case arise.  Here the 
parties do not dispute that the actions of the trial court 
prevented Ms. Amos from presenting a contemporaneous objection.  
Therefore, the contemporaneous objection exception of Code § 
8.01-384(A) applies and no further steps were required to 
preserve her issues for appellate review. 
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of 
Appeals. 
Affirmed. 
 
JUSTICE MCCLANAHAN, dissenting. 
 
I disagree with the majority's interpretation and 
application of Code § 8.01-384(A).  The statute simply does not 
dictate that a party having "no opportunity to object to a 
ruling or order at the time it is made" is relieved of any 
obligation to later state his objection if the trial court can 
still take corrective action - whether in the context of summary 
contempt or otherwise. 
 
To be sure, under the express terms of Code § 8.01-384(A), 
a party will not be "prejudice[d]" by his failure to make a 
contemporaneous objection if he has no opportunity to do so.  
Nevertheless, if that party later has an opportunity to make his 
objection in time for the trial court to correct the purported 
error, but fails to object, it is that failure which causes him 
12 
"prejudice" on appeal, i.e., default, not the absence of a 
contemporaneous objection.  Id.  And, manifestly, the statute 
makes no provision to the contrary. 
 
Accordingly, for these reasons, along with those stated in 
the dissent to the Court of Appeals' en banc opinion addressing 
the proper construction of Code § 8.01-384(A), Amos v. 
Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 730, 746-49, 740 S.E.2d 43, 51-53 
(2013) (Felton, C.J., dissenting), I would reverse the Court of 
Appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.  Therefore, 
I dissent.