Epps v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Virginia
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHumphreys, J.
I concur in the majority’s analysis and holdings with respect to all issues presented with the exception of that portion of the majority’s analysis and holding regarding the admissibility of Judge Baskervill’s testimony. Specifically, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the plain language of Code § 19.2-271 barred Judge Baskervill from testifying at the contempt hearing. Initially, I agree with the majority that the “victim of a crime” language in Code § 19.2-271 does not apply under the circumstances of this case. I also agree that Code § 18.2-459, which authorizes a district…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- MacK v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
- Barr v. Town & Country Properties, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1990
- Watkins v. HallSupreme Court of Virginia · 1934
- City of Fairfax v. ShanklinSupreme Court of Virginia · 1964
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.