Opinion ID: 1058661
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Comments Made in Opening Statement

Text: Teleguz asserts that the trial court erred in denying his mistrial motions based upon comments made by the Commonwealth during opening statements. The first comment was that Teleguz gave no reaction when told by the police about Sipe's murder, and that he did not ask about his son. The second comment referred to expected testimony of Teleguz's brother, Pavel Teleguz. A review of the record demonstrates that the trial court never denied a motion for mistrial with regard to either statement because no such motions were made. Although the trial court sustained Teleguz's motion in limine to exclude any evidence regarding his precustodial silence, Teleguz did not object, ask for a cautionary instruction, or move for a mistrial in conjunction with the Commonwealth's reference to precustodial silence in its opening statement. While Teleguz did object to the Commonwealth's comments regarding Pavel Teleguz's testimony, he did not request a mistrial. Teleguz only commented, I don't think we should risk a mistrial based on that before the trial court overruled the objection. Accordingly, these assignments of error do not address a ruling made by the trial court and we do not consider them. [2] Rule 5:17(c); Rawls v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 334, 344, 634 S.E.2d 697, 701 (2006).