Tizon v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant waived “any appellate challenge to the prosecutor’s allegedly improper remark during opening statement” by not making a “timely motion for a mistrial”
• noting that probable cause does not “demand any showing that such a belief be more correct or more likely true than false” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that “probable cause” does not “demand any showing that such a belief be more correct or more likely true than false” (quoting Joyce v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 646, 659 (2010))
• “[A] factfinder may ‘draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.’” (quoting Haskins v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 1, 10 (2004))
• “The Virginia Supreme Court has . . . repeatedly rejected the assertion that the ‘natural and probable consequences of his acts’ instruction unconstitutionally ‘shifts the burden of proof.’”
• “[E]ven if not ‘inherently incredible[,]’ a defendant’s exculpatory version of events need not be accepted by the factfinder.” (quoting Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 188, 190, 269 S.E.2d 352, 353 (1980))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).