From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bouldin v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Norfolk
Jun 22, 1993
Record No. 2008-91-1 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 1993)

Opinion

Record No. 2008-91-1

June 22, 1993

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK JOHN C. MORRISON, JR., JUDGE.

William P. Robinson, Jr. (Robinson, Madison, Fulton Anderson, on brief), for appellant.

Katharine B. Toone, Assistant Attorney General (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Baker, Barrow and Benton.

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.


Travis Wayne Bouldin, Jr. (appellant) appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk (trial court) that approved a jury verdict convicting him of murder in the second degree and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. The sole error alleged by appellant is that the trial court erroneously refused to grant his motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor's introduction of evidence of appellant's other crimes during the cross-examination of a defense witness. Finding that the motion for a mistrial was not timely made, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Anthony Williams testified on behalf of appellant. On direct examination, defense counsel asked Williams if he knew appellant and "[h]ow do you know him and in what capacity?" Williams responded that he knew appellant from the basketball court at the park. Thereafter, on cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Williams if he did not know appellant "from more than just playing basketball." The witness responded by saying, "No." The prosecutor next asked Williams if he had ever bought drugs from appellant. No objection was made to the question and Williams answered, "No." Williams was then asked if he had not previously been asked, "Do you know [appellant] because you deal drugs for him?" and that Williams had answered, "No, but I have gotten drugs from him." Still there was no objection. A series of other prosecution questions followed, seven in number, and the witness answered without objection. When the prosecutor advised the court that he had concluded his cross-examination, appellant made his motion for a mistrial out of the presence of the jury.

We need address only the question of whether timely objection was made to the admission of the evidence that appellant asserts as error. No objection was made to the questions and answers until after the prosecutor had concluded his examination. In order for an objection to be preserved for appeal, it must be timely made and the grounds stated with specificity. Rule 5A:18. To be timely, the objection must be made at the time the evidence is offered. Gaumont v. State Highway Comm'n, 205 Va. 223, 225, 135 S.E.2d 790, 791 (1964); Ingram v. Commonwealth, 1 Va. App. 335, 341, 338 S.E.2d 657, 660 (1986).

We find that the objection was not timely, and, thus, do not consider its merits on appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Bouldin v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Norfolk
Jun 22, 1993
Record No. 2008-91-1 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 1993)
Case details for

Bouldin v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Full title:TRAVIS WAYNE BOULDIN, JR. v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia. Norfolk

Date published: Jun 22, 1993

Citations

Record No. 2008-91-1 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 1993)