Jason N. Creamer v. Commonwealth of Virginia

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the Supreme Court rules must be read in harmony with the code
• holding that the circuit court did not err in excluding a witness’s testimony because appellant’s proffer of the testimony at trial failed to establish its relevance
• holding Rule 2:102 requires that codified evidence rules must be interpreted in a manner giving effect to prior case law
• recognizing the need for a proffer when evidence is excluded so that the appellate court may determine whether the exclusion was harmless
• noting that the trier of fact determines witness credibility and weight to be afforded testimony
• stating that the purpose of Rule 5A:18 is “to allow the trial court a fair opportunity to resolve the issue at trial, thereby preventing unnecessary appeals and retrials”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).