Murillo-Rodriguez v. Com.

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 motion to strike the evidence preserves an objection to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal only if it is made after all the evidence has been admitted
• holding that the defendant had not preserved a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence because he failed to renew his motion to strike and did not move to set aside the jury’s verdict after presenting his own evidence
• observing that a timely objection “provides the opposing party an opportunity to address an issue at a time when the course of the proceedings may be altered in response to the problem presented”
• noting that the “primary purpose of requiring timely and specific objections is to allow the trial court an opportunity to rule intelligently on the issues presented, thereby avoiding unnecessary appeals and reversals” (quoting Shelton v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 121, 126 (2007))
• noting that the “primary purpose of requiring timely and specific objections is to allow the trial court an opportunity to rule intelligently on the issues presented, thereby avoiding unnecessary appeals and reversals” (quoting Shelton v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 121, 126 (2007))
• requiring a “specific, contemporaneous objection” to “provide[] the opposing party an opportunity to address the issue” and to “allow the trial court to rule intelligently on the issues presented”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).