Court Opinion

ID: 9566784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:43:04.373591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:52.983543
License: Public Domain

Opinion
FITZPATRICK, J.
Franklin McKinley Yeager (appellant) was convicted by a jury of three counts of rape in violation of Code § 18.2-*76361. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to vacate the final orders pending an evidentiary hearing on his motion for a new trial; (2) denying his motion for a n.ew trial without a hearing on the merits; (3) denying his request for a bill of particulars; and (4) refusing a proffered jury instruction directing the jury to consider the victim’s failure to timely report the rapes. Finding no error, we affirm the convictions.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was indicted under Code § 18.2-61 on three counts of raping his eleven-year-old daughter. Indictment No. 2164 originally charged that the first rape occurred “approximately November 1988.” Indictment No. 2165 charged that the second rape occurred between December 25, 1990 and January 10, 1991. The third indictment, No. 2166, charged that the last rape occurred on or about February 22, 1991.
Appellant was arraigned on April 26, 1991. He pled not guilty to all three counts. On the same day, the trial judge granted the Commonwealth’s motion to amend indictment No. 2164 to reflect that the first rape occurred between March 1, 1989 and July 1, 1989. Appellant objected to the amendment and moved to strike the original indictment as a basic mistake of fact, arguing that the Commonwealth should be barred from seeking another indictment within the amended time frame of March 1, 1989 through July 1, 1989. In support of its motion to amend, the Commonwealth noted that the appellant had not requested a bill of particulars and that the indictment need not be dismissed because the date of offense proved differed from the original date in the indictment. The trial judge granted the Commonwealth’s motion and re-arraigned appellant on the amended indictment, to which appellant pled not guilty.
On May 2, 1991, appellant requested a bill of particulars pursuant to Code § 19.2-230 seeking the precise facts and circumstances constituting the offenses under all three indictments. On May 6, 1991, the trial judge denied the motion as not timely because a plea had already been entered.
On the morning of trial, appellant requested a rape shield hearing pursuant to Code § 18.2-67.7. Both sides argued a motion in limine addressing the admissibility of two letters allegedly written by the victim. Appellant argued that these letters were offered to provide an *764alternative explanation for the physical evidence of the offense charged. At that time, the victim denied writing the letters. The trial judge found the letters admissible and granted appellant’s motion.
The jury found the appellant guilty on all three rape counts and recommended life sentences on each. On September 17, 1991, appellant was sentenced to two concurrent life sentences and one consecutive life sentence. The final orders were entered October 11,1991.
On October 31, 1991, appellant filed a motion to vacate the sentencing orders and a motion for a new trial. Argument on the two motions was heard November 1, 1991. At that time, appellant requested the sentencing orders be vacated “until such time as a hearing on the merits” on the motion for new trial was heard. He proffered as “newly discovered evidence” the opinion of a handwriting expert who, if called, would testify that the two letters which the victim denied having written “appear to have been written by daughter.” The trial judge denied both post-trial motions.
BILL OF PARTICULARS
Appellant contends that the trial judge abused his discretion by failing to order a bill of particulars when the Commonwealth amended one of the three rape indictments to allege a new offense date. Appellant argued that the requested information would “be important and useful to the defense in preparing its case.” The trial judge found the request to be untimely and the “purpose for which the bill of particulars is being sought in these cases is a matter of identifying the time and location of the alleged events.”
Code § 19.2-230 provides in pertinent part: “A court of record may direct the filing of a bill of particulars at any time before trial. A motion for a bill of particulars shall be made before a plea is entered and at least seven days before the day fixed for trial.” (emphasis added). Although appellant made the motion at least seven days prior to trial, he had been re-arraigned on the amended indictment and pled not guilty.
The purpose of a bill of particulars is to provide sufficient facts to inform the accused in advance of the offense for which he is to be tried. Quesinberry v. Commonwealth, 241 Va. 364, 372, 402 S.E.2d 218, 223 (quoting Hevener v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 802, 814, 54 S.E.2d 893, 899 (1949)), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 113 (1991). A bill of particulars is required only when the indictment is insufficient to *765notify the accused of the nature and character of the charges so he can make his defense. Strickler v. Commonwealth, 241 Va. 482, 490, 404 S.E.2d 227, 233 (quoting Wilder v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 145, 147, 225 S.E.2d 411, 413 (1976)), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 386 (1991).
There is no question that the indictment was sufficient to apprise the appellant of the nature and character of the offense, as he had already entered his plea prior to his bill of particulars request. In a statutory rape case, when the age of the victim is not in dispute, time is not of the essence of such an offense, and the Commonwealth is not required to specify the exact date. Clinebell v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 362, 366-67, 349 S.E.2d 676, 679 (1986), aff’d in part, 235 Va. 319, 368 S.E.2d 263 (1988). Fundamental fairness is provided if the defendant has notice of the nature and character of the offense charged.
DENIAL OF JURY INSTRUCTION
At the conclusion of the evidence, appellant offered the following instruction:
If you find that there is not a reasonable explanation for the victim’s failure to report an alleged rape for a reasonable period after the incident occurred, you may be suspect and doubtful of the truthfulness of the victim’s story.
The instruction was not taken from the Model Jury Instructions, but was based on language found in Willis v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 560, 563, 238 S.E.2d 811, 813 (1977).1 The trial judge denied the instruction as being a comment on the evidence and inappropriate as an instruction. However, the trial judge specifically allowed appellant’s counsel to argue the point in closing. Appellant contends that this instruction appropriately directs the jury’s attention to the victim’s lapse in reporting the rapes and that a failure to explain such a lapse casts “suspicion and doubt on the truthfulness” of the victim’s story. Id. We disagree. The language quoted does not accurately reflect the Supreme Court’s holding in that case, nor is it a proper jury instruction.
*766A statement made in the course of a judicial decision is not necessarily proper language for a jury instruction. Snyder v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 792, 797, 263 S.E.2d 55, 58 (1980). We note that the language submitted by appellant does not comport with that of the relied upon case. The quoted statement of the law omitted the last portion of the sentence, the phrase, “unless there is a credible explanation given for such a delay.” Willis, 218 Va. at 563, 238 S.E.2d at 813.
Furthermore, “[w]hen a trial judge instructs the jury in the law, he or she may not ‘single out for emphasis a part of the evidence tending to establish a particular fact.’ The danger of such emphasis is that it gives undue prominence by the trial judge to the highlighted evidence and may mislead the jury.” Terry v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 167, 170, 360 S.E.2d 880, 882 (1987) (citation omitted). While denying this specific instruction, the trial judge properly allowed appellant to address in closing argument the failure to promptly report the rapes. Accordingly, we find no error in the instruction of the jury.
REQUEST TO VACATE FINAL ORDERS
On November 1, 1991, the twenty-first day after entry of the sentencing orders, appellant’s motion for a new trial was heard. Appellant requested that the sentencing orders of October 11, 1991 be vacated until such time as a full evidentiary hearing on the motion could be held. The trial judge refused to do so. Accepting as true all grounds appellant proffered as the basis for a new trial, his evidence failed to meet the threshold requirements for a new trial based upon after-discovered evidence. Appellant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to a new trial and, thus, a further hearing was properly denied.
The foundation for appellant’s motions was the after-discovered evidence of a handwriting expert’s analysis of the two letters allegedly written by the victim. The analysis found that the handwriting “appeared to be” that of the victim. In support of both motions, appellant argued that he could establish the necessary showing for granting a new trial at an evidentiary hearing on these motions.
Because of the need for finality in court adjudications, four requirements must be met before a new trial is granted based upon an allegation of newly-discovered evidence: (1) the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) it could not have been obtained prior to *767trial through the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) it is not merely cumulative, corroborative or collateral; and (4) is material, and as such, should produce an opposite result on the merits at another trial.
Mundy v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 461, 480, 390 S.E.2d 525, 535, aff’d en banc, 399 S.E.2d 29 (Va. App. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 840 (1991) (citations omitted); see also Carter v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 507, 393 S.E.2d 639 (1990).
“Motions for new trials based on after-discovered evidence are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, are not looked upon with favor, are considered with special care and caution, and are awarded with great reluctance.” Stockton v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 124, 149, 314 S.E.2d 371, 387, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873 (1984) (citation omitted). “Before setting aside a verdict, the trial court must have evidence before it to show in a clear and convincing manner ‘as to leave no room for doubt’ that the after-discovered evidence, if true would produce a different result at another trial.” Carter, 10 Va. App. at 513, 393 S.E.2d at 642.
The trial judge found that the basic evidence (the letters) was not discovered after trial, but was in fact admitted into evidence during the trial. Only the expert’s analysis of the letters was after-discovered. In addition, appellant failed to exercise due diligence in securing this evidence during trial. The letters were submitted and admitted during the rape shield hearing, held at appellant’s request, on the morning of the trial rather than at an earlier date. These letters were the very subject of that hearing. Despite the untimeliness of the motion, they were admitted and appellant was permitted to use the letters as the basis for an alternative explanation for the child’s physical condition.
The fact that the victim might deny authorship of the letters is not an unforeseeable event. Appellant created this situation by waiting until the morning of trial to raise the letter issue and he cannot now complain that he was unprepared.
Lastly, the additional evidence, if true, is merely corroborative. Evidence was presented to the jury that the victim denied writing the letters and contrary evidence was presented by appellant’s witness, the victim’s cousin, attesting to the victim’s authorship. This issue was *768before the jury at the original trial, and a new trial would not necessarily produce an opposite result if the after-discovered evidence was admitted.
The trial judge noted that appellant failed to attach an affidavit to his motion for a new trial. “The applicant for a new trial must set forth in affidavits facts showing what his efforts were to obtain the evidence and explaining why he was prevented from securing it.” Fulcher v. Whitlow, 208 Va. 34, 38, 155 S.E.2d 362, 365 (1967). The trial judge nonetheless accepted appellant’s counsel’s proffer of the expert’s analysis as true for the purposes of ruling on the motion. The trial judge “assumed for purpose of argument that affidavits would support the allegations made in the Motion for a New Trial,” and found that appellant failed to meet his burden of proof to justify a new trial. Accordingly, both motions were denied.
We conclude that, even if appellant’s evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to him, he failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Bray, J., concurred.

 Appellant was apparently relying on the following passage from Willis: “The failure to report an alleged rape by force and violence for an unreasonable period after the incident occurred casts suspicion and doubt on the truthfulness of the story of a prosecutrix unless there is a credible explanation given for such a delay.” 218 Va. at 563, 238 S.E.2d at 813 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).