Groves v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a sincere “good faith” claim of right, but not a “dishonest pretense,” could permit the factfinder to conclude larcenous intent did not exist
• stating that the Court would not address the appellant’s argument regarding sufficiency of the evidence where the appellant had expressly abandoned it by concession at oral argument
• noting that a judgment “comes to us on appeal with a presumption that the law was correctly applied to the facts”
• stating that the Court would not address the appellant’s argument I. BACKGROUND3 Around 4:40 a.m. on December 16, 2023, Sheriff’s Deputy Taylor Everetts (“Deputy Everetts”
• noting that the full context of a statement by the trial court needs to be considered before finding that a trial court erred in applying the law
• noting that a “judge is presumed to know the law and to apply it correctly in each case” (quoting Crest v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 165, 172 n.3, 578 S.E.2d 88, 91 n.3 (2003))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).