Opinion
Record No. 0043-92-1
August 10, 1993
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH JOHNNY E. MORRISON, JUDGE.
Brenda C. Spry, Senior Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Bray.
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Scott Craig Hyler (defendant) was indicted for abduction in the trial court, but convicted by the trial judge of assault. He now appeals, contending that the trial court erroneously "reduced" abduction to assault as a "lesser-included offense." However, because consideration of this issue is barred by Rule 5A:18, we affirm the conviction.
The parties are fully conversant with the record, and this memorandum opinion recites only those facts necessary to a disposition of the issue before the Court.
At both the conclusion of the Commonwealth's evidence and all the evidence, defendant moved the trial court to strike the Commonwealth's evidence with respect to abduction. Although these motions were overruled, the trial judge decided to "take the finding under advisement" and ordered a presentence report. Following additional argument of counsel at the later sentencing hearing, the court "grant[ed]" the motion of defendant's counsel "with respect to the abduction charge being reduced to assault," a ruling which is also clearly reflected in the sentencing order. Defendant raised no objection to the trial court with respect to this decision.
It is well established that, "[o]n appeal, a ruling of a trial court cannot be a basis for reversal unless an objection is 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.'" Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476, 480, 405 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1991) (en banc) (quoting Rule 5A:18). "Among the purposes underlying the contemporaneous objection rule are to enable the trial court to prevent error, to cure alleged error with prompt and decisive instruction, and to prevent compounding any harmful consequences by dwelling on irrelevant matters." Harward v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 468, 473-74, 364 S.E.2d 511, 513 (1988).
Defendant presents no justification for the ends of justice exception in this instance and is, therefore, barred from now challenging the action of the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.