George Andrew Holland v Commonwealth

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Willis, Fitzpatrick and Overton
Argued at Salem, Virginia

GEORGE ANDREW HOLLAND

Vv. Record No. 0171-95-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, OR.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA APRIL 23, 1996

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF MARTINSVILLE
Frank I. Richardson, Jr., Judge

Vikram Kapil, Assistant Public Defender, for
appellant.

Richard H. Rizk, Assistant Attorney General
(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General;

Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General,
on brief), for appellee.

On appeal from his conviction of brandishing a firearm in
violation of Code § 18.2-282, George Andrew Holland contends that
the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.

During the trial, a witness for the Commonwealth testified
that Holland pulled a gun from his car and threatened her outside
of the Corner Market. She testified that she told him, "You've
done killed before, but you're not going to do nothing to me.

I'm going to take you uptown to a white man." Holland objected
to the witness' statement, arguing that any probative value it
had was far outweighed by its prejudicial effect on the jury.

His objection was overruled. He did not ask for a cautionary

"Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

- 2 -
instruction or move for a mistrial.
At the close of all the evidence, Holland moved for a
mistrial, contending that the witness' statement concerning a
prior unspecified killing was inflammatory and prejudicial. 	The
trial court denied the motion for a mistrial. 	Holland contends
that this denial was error because the testimony was "illegal
evidence [that] was so impressive that it probably remained on
the minds of the jury and influenced their verdict." 	Montgomery
v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 343, 345, 200 S.E.2d 577, 579 (1973).
We do not reach the merits of whether the trial court erred
in denying Holland's motion for a mistrial because the motion was
not made timely.
[I]f a defendant wishes to take advantage on
appeal of some incident he regards as
objectionable enough to warrant a mistrial,
he must make his motion timely or else be
deemed to have waived his objection. 	Making
a timely motion for mistrial means making the
motion "when the objectional words were
spoken."
Yeatts v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 121, 137, 410 S.E.2d 254, 264
(1991) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 946 (1992).
"A motion for mistrial is required to preserve such an issue for
appeal even if an objection is made to the conduct or comments
and is overruled by the trial court." 	Parker v. Commonwealth, 14
Va. App. 592, 596, 421 S.E.2d 450, 453 (1992).
Because Holland failed to move timely and specifically for a
mistrial when the objectionable evidence was presented, he waived
any objection to it on appeal. 	Rule 5A:18.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.