in the Interest of J. D., a Child

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that blocking the kitchen door and detaining the victim was a separate abduction unnecessary to accomplishing the crime of assault and battery
• noting that although the evidence proved a “temporal connection” between the assault and battery and the abduction, the two offenses “did not occur simultaneously”
• “A court speaks through its orders and those orders are presumed to accurately reflect what transpired.” (quoting McBride, 24 Va. App. at 35)
• “The credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented.” (quoting Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995)
• “The credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented.” (quoting Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995)
• “The credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented.” (quoting Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).