Court Opinion

ID: 9559987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:40:19.06313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:57.279478
License: Public Domain

*358Moon, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the case should be reversed. The defense moved to strike the evidence because the Commonwealth did not introduce affirmative proof of Jewell’s age. In response to the motion, the court commented that Jewell looked well over eighteen and that based upon documents in the file Jewell’s birthdate was August 15, 1941. As I view what happened, the court in effect reopened the case and took judicial notice of evidence tending to prove appellant’s age. Therefore, the issue is not whether the evidence was sufficient but rather should be whether the court could reopen the case and take notice of the facts that it did. However, to this action there was no objection. I believe appellant should have objected to the court’s action and stated his reason therefor with specificity at the trial level as required by Rule 5A:18. Had he done so, the trial court might have sustained the objection and granted the motion to strike. See, e.g., C. Friend, The Law of Evidence in Virginia § 284 (3d ed. 1988). On the other hand, the court could have reopened the case and called for evidence of Jewell’s age. Reopening the evidence would be proper and within the discretion of the trial court:
When all the testimony in the trial of a case has been concluded and the witnesses for the respective parties have been excused from their attendance upon court, whether the court will allow the introduction of other testimony is a question addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, “and unless it affirmatively appears that this discretion has been abused, this court will not disturb the trial court’s ruling thereon.”
Williams v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 53, 77, 354 S.E.2d 79, 92 (1987) (quoting Mundy v. Commonwealth, 161 Va. 1049, 1065, 171 S.E.2d 691, 696 (1933)).
Because there was no objection to the court’s action, I would affirm the judgment. Id.