Crawford v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Virginia
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
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- White v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.