Court Opinion

ID: 9576035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:19:58.322327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:24.890419
License: Public Domain

THOMPSON, J.,
dissenting.
The majority opinion contains these statements:
The evidence establishes, as defendant concedes, that he illegally manufactured methamphetamine. . . .
It is clear that the defendant was on trial for manufacturing methamphetamine. The entire thrust of the Commonwealth’s case was to establish that fact. The Commonwealth’s Attorney so stated in his opening statement and in his closing argument to the jury. . . .
The evidence clearly established that the defendant manufactured methamphetamine, and it is most unlikely that the jury reached any conclusion other than that. . . .
In Jackson v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 490, 492, 237 S.E.2d 791 (1977) we said:
We said in Williams v. Commonwealth, 153 Va. 987, at 994, 151 S.E. 151, 153 (1930), that if “the real finding of the jury may be determined” we will disregard defects in a verdict which has been approved by the trial court.
Instruction 1 was given by the Court without objection.1 If there was any doubt in anyone’s mind about the true finding of the jury, it could have been corrected before the jury was discharged.2
I feel that Spear has failed to comply with Rule 5:21 and that the alleged error is not properly before this court. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 The record states in pertinent part:
The Court: Mr. Melesco, I have ten instructions and you have read them. Are there any objections to the instructions that the Court intends to give?
Mr. Melesco: We wouid, of course, object to any instructions on the offense of manufacturing your Honor. We feel that the evidence at the best only bears the case of possession. But otherwise, we have no objection.

 The record reveals the following exchange:
The Court: Any motions prior to discharging the jury, Mr. Melesco?
Mr. Melesco: No, your Honor.
THE COURT DISCHARGED THE JURY.