From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Green, Jr. v. Green

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Richmond
Jun 15, 1993
Record No. 0676-92-3 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 1993)

Opinion

Record No. 0676-92-3

June 15, 1993

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HANOVER COUNTY RICHARD H. C. TAYLOR, JUDGE.

Alexandra D. Bowen (Debra C. Corcoran; Bowen Bowen, on brief), for appellant.

William B. Kerkam, III (Bremner, Baber Janus, on brief), for appellee.

Edward S. Whitlock, III (Stuart A. Simon Associates, on brief), Guardian ad litem.

(Michael L. Oddenino, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, Children's Rights Council).

Present: Judges Koontz, Elder and Fitzpatrick.

When the case was argued, Judge Koontz presided. Judge Moon was elected Chief Judge effective May 1, 1993.

Argued at Richmond, Virginia.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

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


Osborne Timberlake Green, Jr. (father) appeals from the March 11, 1992, order of the Hanover County Circuit Court awarding custody of Jessica and Julianne Green to Betty Smith Green (mother) and custody of Jonathan and Jason Green to father. Father raises four assignments of error in this appeal. Because we find that our consideration of these issues is barred by Rule 5A:18, we do not reach the merits of father's assignments of error.

"Rule 5A:18 of this Court states that error will be sustained to a ruling of the trial court only when the objection was stated, together with the grounds therefor, at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice." Snurkowski v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 532, 536, 348 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1986). "The goal of the contemporaneous objection rule is to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials by allowing the trial judge to intelligently consider an issue and, if necessary, to take corrective action." Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476, 480, 405 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1991) (en banc).

Here, counsel for father failed to comply with the contemporaneous objection rule. The record shows that father's counsel did not object to the trial court's review of the juvenile court proceedings, the court's decision not to hear testimony from the children, or the court's decision to separate the children. The failure of father's counsel to object at the time of the rulings deprived the circuit court of the opportunity to take any necessary corrective action. Moreover, father's objection in his appellate brief to the court's reliance on Dr. Morris' testimony is not supported by any timely objection in the record. Accordingly, father has failed to preserve these objections for appeal.

We are not required by the "ends of justice" to address these objections in the absence of a timely objection. "[T]he 'ends of justice' provision may be used when the record affirmatively shows that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, not when it merely shows that a miscarriage might have occurred."Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 436, 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987). Although father counsel alleges that "[t]his Court has before it facts that are sufficient to enable it to attain the ends of justice," counsel does not allege, and our review of the record does not disclose, that a clear miscarriage of justice has occurred. Accordingly, the "ends of justice" do not require our review of these objections for the first time on appeal.

Affirmed.

A Copy,

Teste:

Patricia G. Davis

By:

Deputy Clerk


Summaries of

Green, Jr. v. Green

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Richmond
Jun 15, 1993
Record No. 0676-92-3 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 1993)
Case details for

Green, Jr. v. Green

Case Details

Full title:OSBORNE TIMBERLAKE GREEN, JR. v. BETTY SMITH GREEN

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia. Richmond

Date published: Jun 15, 1993

Citations

Record No. 0676-92-3 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 1993)