Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Crawford v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided December 29, 2009No. 1194072Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

ELDER, J., with whom FELTON, C.J.,

joins, concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part.

I concur with the en banc majority’s statement that, under the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, evidence which is testimonial may “ ‘not be admitted without a showing that the defendant intended to prevent a witness from testifying.’” See supra at 472-73, 686 S.E.2d at 564 (quoting Giles v. California, — U.S. -, -, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2684, 171 L.Ed.2d 488, 497 (2008)). I also concur in the majority opinion to the extent it holds that the trial court, “[b]y not *483considering [appellant’s] intent, ...…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  3. Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  4. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
  5. White v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1992

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

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

Powered by the Exa API