Matter of Stephanie RR.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a defendant in a jury trial preserves his sufficiency arguments by raising them in a motion to strike after all the evidence or a motion to set aside the verdicts
• holding sufficiency challenges unpreserved in a jury trial unless timely raised in motions to strike or a motion to set aside verdict
• finding that defendant did not preserve his argument where he did not argue to the trial court that the witnesses’ testimony was inherently incredible as a matter of law
• noting that, absent waiver, “felony prosecutions” are required to “proceed by indictment or presentment”
• framing the test as requiring consideration of “whether there is error” as the appellant contends and “whether the -5- failure to apply the [exception] would result in a grave injustice” (quoting Gheorghiu v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 678, 689 (2010))
• “It is well settled that the question of a variance between an indictment and the proof offered at trial is subject to the contemporaneous objection rule.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).