Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1994

Chaine v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia · Decided May 3, 1994 · Baker, Moon

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

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Christopher Ray Ballard v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2016)
Harry Garfield Chadderton v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2014)
Richard Lee Cook v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2005)
Luis A. Campos, s/k/a Luis Antonio Campos v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2004)
Seibert v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 1996)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

070rehearing

UPON A REHEARING EN BANC

Opinion

In Chaine v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 179, 436 S.E.2d 187 (1993), a majority of a panel of this Court reversed a conviction for violation of Code § 18.2-361. The Commonwealth’s petition for rehearing en banc was granted and heard on February 18, 1994. For the reasons stated in the panel’s majority opinion, we reverse the conviction and lift the stay of this Court’s October 12, 1993, mandate.

Reversed.

Dissenting Opinion

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 *302trial 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.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.