Lay v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that under Rule 5A:12(c) “[w]e . . . do not answer [an] unasked question”
• explaining that under Rule 5A:12(c) “[w]e . . . do not answer [an] unasked question”
• explaining that under Rule 5A:12(c) “[w]e . . . do not answer [an] unasked question”
• relying on Martin, 272 Va. at 34, in addressing the type of force required in a burglary case
• In appeal of breaking and entering conviction, Rule 5A:12(c) prevented this Court from reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence under a constructive breaking theory because defendant's question presented asked whether evidence was sufficient to prove an actual breaking.
• In appeal of breaking and entering conviction, Rule 5A: 12(c) prevented this Court from reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence under a constructive breaking theory because defendant’s question presented asked whether evidence was sufficient to prove an actual breaking.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).