Opinion ID: 1059740
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Request for a Bill of Particulars

Text: Walker next assigns error to the trial court's denial of his request for a bill of particulars. He contends that the information he requested was necessary to ensure his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, and that the lack of such information undermines the greater degree of reliability that due process requires in death penalty cases. In his request for a bill of particulars, Walker sought identification of the grounds for the capital murder charge and the evidence upon which the Commonwealth would rely to prove the charge. He further requested the Commonwealth to identify and provide a narrowing construction of the aggravating factors upon which it intended to rely in seeking the death penalty as well as the evidence it intended to use in support of the aggravating factors. The Commonwealth responded to Walker's request by reciting the grounds upon which it believed Walker was guilty of capital murder. The Commonwealth further stated that, if Walker was convicted of capital murder, it would seek the death penalty based on the aggravating factors of vileness and future dangerousness. The Commonwealth stated that, to prove vileness, it would rely on the depravity of mind and aggravated battery components provided in Code § 19.2-264(C). Finally, the Commonwealth informed Walker that in proving future dangerousness, it would rely on Walker's adult and juvenile criminal record, the circumstances of the commission of the current offenses, Walker's lack of remorse, and evidence of other crimes whether adjudicated or unadjudicated. The information requested by Walker is virtually identical to that requested by the defendant in Strickler v. Commonwealth, 241 Va. 482, 404 S.E.2d 227, cert. denied, 502 U.S. 944, 112 S.Ct. 386, 116 L.Ed.2d 337 (1991). In Strickler, we held that where the indictment is sufficient, i.e., gives the accused notice of the nature and character of the offense charged so he can make his defense, a bill of particulars is not required. Id. at 490, 404 S.E.2d at 233 (quoting Wilder v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 145, 147, 225 S.E.2d 411, 413 (1976)). Here, there is no challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment. As in Strickler, those parts of Walker's request for a bill of particulars seeking disclosure of the evidence upon which the Commonwealth intended to rely in the guilt and sentencing phases of the trial are sweeping demands for pretrial disclosure of all the Commonwealth's evidence. 241 Va. at 490, 404 S.E.2d at 233. However, [t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, even where a capital offense is charged. Id. at 490-91, 404 S.E.2d at 233. Walker, like the defendant in Strickler, received all the information to which he was entitled. Furthermore, whether to require the Commonwealth to file a bill of particulars is a matter that falls within the sound discretion of the trial court, Goins v. Commonwealth, 251 Va. 442, 454, 470 S.E.2d 114, 123, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 887, 117 S.Ct. 222, 136 L.Ed.2d 154 (1996), and Walker has not demonstrated an abuse of that discretion. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Walker's request for a bill of particulars in this case.