Skip to main content

Stewart v. Commonwealth

Citations

  • 394 S.E.2d 509
  • 10 Va. App. 563
  • 7 Va. Law Rep. 38
  • 1990 Va. App. LEXIS 127

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that the movant’s “assert[ion] that he was prejudiced because the -4- trial court’s ruling prevented him from interviewing a potentially valuable witness who might have been able to discredit [a witness’s] identification of him” was mere speculation
  • court denied motion for continuance based on defendant’s “speculation” that missing witness might be potentially valuable
  • “Limitation of cross-examination is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and is subject to review only for abuse of discretion.” (quoting Naulty v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 523, 529, 346 S.E.2d 540, 543 (1986))
  • unchallenged unilateral avowal of counsel may constitute sufficient proffer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Koontz

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.