Chaine v. Commonwealth

443 S.E.2d 924, 18 Va. App. 301, 10 Va. Law Rep. 1350, 1994 Va. App. LEXIS 272

Opinions

Baker, J., with whom Moon, C.J.,

joins, dissenting.

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s finding that “the trial judge’s response is a clear acknowledgment that he understood the issue.” Counsel for appellant candidly admitted that he did not raise the double jeopardy issue, yet the majority holds that the trial court ruled on that issue. Respectfully, I suggest that the majority has given new meaning to the word “specificity” contained in Rule 5A:18. I would affirm the trial court’s judgment because appellant failed to meet the specificity requirement of Rule 5A:18.