Leon Parrish Marshall v. Commonwealth
This text of Leon Parrish Marshall v. Commonwealth (Leon Parrish Marshall v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Senior Judge Overton Argued at Richmond, Virginia
LEON PARRISH MARSHALL MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY v. Record No. 1499-02-2 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III OCTOBER 14, 2003 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LUNENBURG COUNTY William L. Wellons, Judge
Michael J. Brickhill (Michael J. Brickhill, P.C., on brief), for appellant.
Amy L. Marshall, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
A jury convicted Leon Parrish Marshall of rape and two counts of aggravated sexual
battery. He contends the evidence is insufficient because the victim's testimony was incredible
as a matter of law. Concluding the defendant did not raise this issue at trial, we affirm.
"[A] challenge to the sufficiency of the Commonwealth's evidence is waived if not raised
with some specificity in the trial court." Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 435, 357
S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987). When the defendant made a motion to set aside the jury verdict, he
simply stated, "we would make a motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the law." "A mere
statement that the judgment or award is contrary to the law and the evidence is not sufficient to
constitute a question to be ruled upon on appeal." Rule 5A:18.
The ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18 does not apply to this case. The victim was
fourteen years old and testified about the defendant's actions. The testimony established each
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. element of each charge. While her testimony contained conflicts and inconsistencies, nothing
suggested it was incredible as a matter of law. The jury resolved the differences and found the
victim credible. That finding was not clearly erroneous. Rule 5A:18 prevents our review of this
issue. See Parrish v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 607, 616, 567 S.E.2d 576, 580 (2002).
Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Leon Parrish Marshall v. Commonwealth, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leon-parrish-marshall-v-commonwealth-vactapp-2003.