Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cudjoe v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided September 24, 1996No. 2607942Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAnnunziata, Judge

I concur with the majority opinion that the trial court’s refusal to allow appellant to strike Craigie was erroneous. However, I find the trial court’s error harmless and, therefore, would affirm the convictions.

As the majority notes, the error in this case is based on a statutory, not a constitutional mandate. Non-constitutional error is harmless

[w]hen it plainly appears from the record and the evidence given at the trial that the parties have had a fair trial on the merits and substantial justice has been reached.

Code § 8.01-678; see Lavinder v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 1003, 1005, 407…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Lavinder v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1991
  2. Breeden v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1976
  3. Martin v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1980
  4. Overbee v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1984
  5. Oliver v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1928

2 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