Home / Fulltext Opinions / Virginia Court of Appeals / MARSHALL v. COMMONWEALTH

MARSHALL v. COMMONWEALTH




NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal
revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify
the Virginia Court of Appeals.


MARSHALL

v.

COMMONWEALTH


COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Senior Judge Overton

Argued at Richmond, Virginia

Record No. 1499-02-2

LEON PARRISH MARSHALL

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]
BY JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III

OCTOBER 14, 2003

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

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.

 

FOOTNOTES:

[1]Pursuant to
Code ? 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.


Scroll To Top