Skip to main content

Bowling v. Commonwealth

Citations

  • 654 S.E.2d 354
  • 51 Va. App. 102
  • 2007 Va. App. LEXIS 461

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • recognizing that admissibility and sufficiency “are two completely separate legal questions, requiring two distinct legal analyses”
  • holding that “whether evidence is admissible at trial and whether it is sufficient to prove the charges against an accused are two completely separate legal questions, requiring two distinct legal analyses”
  • stating that this Court “reviews the totality of the evidence to determine whether it was sufficient to prove” the charged offense
  • holding that, even though defendant made a motion to strike at the conclusion of the case, because the motion did not argue that the evidence was not sufficient to establish a specific element of the offense, this specific argument was not preserved for appeal
  • holding defendant’s failure to challenge the sufficiency of evidence supporting a specific element of the offense at the motion to strike failed to preserve the issue on appeal
  • holding defendant’s failure to challenge the sufficiency of evidence supporting a specific element of the offense at the motion to strike failed to preserve the issue on appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: William G. Petty

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.