Legal Opinion

DeHart v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided October 18, 1994No. 2398-92-3PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

WILLIS, J.

On appeal of his convictions for (1) second degree murder, (2) the use of a firearm in the commission of a murder, and (3) breaking and entering with the intent to commit sexual battery, Kirby Cornell DeHart contends the trial court erred in refusing to strike a venireman for cause. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The statutorily required voir dire disclosed that three veniremen had heard or read about the offenses through the news media. The trial court excused two for cause. The third venireman, Ms. Peters, stated that she had not formed or expressed…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Breeden v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1976
  2. Sizemore v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1990
  3. Reynolds v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1988
  4. Fuller v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1992
  5. Wilmoth v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1990

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. DeHart v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1995
  2. Michael Anthony Winston v. Commonwealth of VirginiaCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API