Carl Wesley Ernest Warner v. Commonwealth of VA

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[t]estimony that a phone call came from a person unknown to the recipient and who is identified only by the caller is hearsay if offered to establish the identity of the caller” and that “[t]he relevancy . . . is dependent upon who made the call”
• uttering conviction affirmed because defendant not entitled to be paid prospectively and claim of right defense cannot apply to innocent third party

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).