Leon Parrish Marshall v. Commonwealth ( 2003 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Senior Judge Overton
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
LEON PARRISH MARSHALL
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 1499-02-2 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
OCTOBER 14, 2003
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LUNENBURG COUNTY
William L. Wellons, Judge
Michael J. Brickhill (Michael J. Brickhill, P.C., on brief), for
appellant.
Amy L. Marshall, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore,
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
A jury convicted Leon Parrish Marshall of rape and two counts of aggravated sexual
battery. He contends the evidence is insufficient because the victim's testimony was incredible
as a matter of law. Concluding the defendant did not raise this issue at trial, we affirm.
"[A] challenge to the sufficiency of the Commonwealth's evidence is waived if not raised
with some specificity in the trial court." Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 435, 357
S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987). When the defendant made a motion to set aside the jury verdict, he
simply stated, "we would make a motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the law." "A mere
statement that the judgment or award is contrary to the law and the evidence is not sufficient to
constitute a question to be ruled upon on appeal." Rule 5A:18.
The ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18 does not apply to this case. The victim was
fourteen years old and testified about the defendant's actions. The testimony established each
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
element of each charge. While her testimony contained conflicts and inconsistencies, nothing
suggested it was incredible as a matter of law. The jury resolved the differences and found the
victim credible. That finding was not clearly erroneous. Rule 5A:18 prevents our review of this
issue. See Parrish v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 607, 616, 567 S.E.2d 576, 580 (2002).
Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
-2-