Commonwealth v. Amos
754 S.E.2d 304
Va.2014Background
- Antonio Jose Amos was convicted of assault and placed on probation with no-contact and no-harassment conditions; Felecia Amos later alleged probation violations.
- A show-cause hearing produced conflicting testimony and a recording; the court found no probation violation and dismissed the rule to show cause.
- Immediately after, the trial judge accused Felecia Amos of lying under oath, summarily found her in contempt under Code § 18.2-456, jailed her for ten days, and remanded her without permitting her to object contemporaneously.
- Felecia Amos filed a pro se motion to vacate and a notice of appeal; no ruling was made on her post-judgment motion before appeal.
- The Court of Appeals (en banc) reversed the contempt conviction, holding Code § 8.01-384(A)’s contemporaneous-objection exception preserved her appellate rights when she was prevented from objecting.
- The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, holding the plain language of Code § 8.01-384(A) excuses the contemporaneous-objection requirement when a party is denied any opportunity to object, and no further post-ruling steps are required to preserve the issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Code § 8.01-384(A)’s contemporaneous-objection exception allows appellate review when a litigant was prevented from objecting at the time of a ruling | Amos: She was denied any opportunity to object, so the statute prevents prejudice and preserves appellate review | Commonwealth: The statute does not excuse later obligations to obtain a ruling (Rule 5A:18/5:25); party must still present objection later if possible | Held: If a party is denied any opportunity to object, the exception applies and no further post-ruling steps are required to preserve the issue for appeal |
| Whether Rule 5A:18 or related case law requires a party to seek a later ruling when initially prevented from objecting | Amos: No—when prevented from contemporaneous objection, later action is not required by statute | Commonwealth: Yes—Rule 5A:18 and cases (e.g., Nusbaum) require presenting issues to the trial court if possible | Held: Rule 5A:18 governs preservation generally, but does not override the unqualified statutory exception in § 8.01-384(A) when a party was denied the opportunity to object |
| Whether Nusbaum controls preservation here | Commonwealth: Nusbaum required seeking a ruling; it undermines Amos’s preservation claim | Amos: Nusbaum is distinguishable because there the appellant had opportunities and sometimes asked the court not to rule | Held: Nusbaum is distinguishable; it did not involve denial of any opportunity to object, so § 8.01-384(A) applied in Amos |
| Whether the court may add requirements to § 8.01-384(A) (e.g., later motion to preserve) | Amos: Court should apply plain statutory language; cannot add requirements | Commonwealth: Practical preservation requires additional steps for appellate review | Held: Court will not add requirements; plain, unqualified text controls and preserves appeals when opportunity to object was denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510 (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Baker v. Commonwealth, 284 Va. 572 (apply plain meaning absent ambiguity)
- Nusbaum v. Berlin, 273 Va. 385 (distinguished; did not involve denial of opportunity to object)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 210 (Rule 5:25/5A:18 and preservation principles)
- Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 (purpose of preservation rules: give trial court opportunity to rule)
- Amos v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 730 (Va. Ct. App. en banc opinion reversing contempt conviction)