Opinion ID: 1211186
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: First-Degree Murder Count

Text: The third count of the indictment charged first-degree murder and, prior to arraignment, the trial court granted the Commonwealth's motion to enter a nolle prosequi on that count. See Code § 19.2-265.3. Boggs argues that the granting of the motion was an abuse of discretion. He claims that the ruling was prejudicial because he was forced to proceed before a jury that was not cognizant of its option to consider the evidence within the framework of a first degree murder alternative. The framework in which the evidence was adduced was constructed at the time the robbery and capital murder counts of the indictment were read to the jury and the defendant entered his pleas of not guilty. The framework in which the evidence was considered by the jury was that fashioned by the instructions. Those instructions defined first-degree and second-degree murder as well as capital murder. We fail to see how the defendant was prejudiced by the nolle prosequi.