Vernon Ray Chappelle v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 62 Va. App. 339

Appellant Vernon Ray Chappelle was convicted of multiple abductions and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony following a four-hour standoff with police at his home.
Dr. Evan Nelson initially evaluated competency and found sanity at the time of offense; Dr. Hollings later evaluated sanity and initially found insanity, then revised to not insane after receiving additional information.
Dr. Hollings testified for the Commonwealth after being appointed by the trial court to assess sanity; she had conversations with appellant and later revised her opinion, with the Commonwealth aware of the revision.
Appellant moved in limine to preclude Dr. Hollings based on the side-switching doctrine, asserting confidential information was disclosed by appellant’s counsel; the trial court denied the motion and she testified.
Appellant asserted a statutory preclusion argument related to the insanity-evaluation statutes, but the trial court and appellate court treated that as waived under Rule 5A:18; the jury returned guilty verdicts and the trial court sentenced appellant to seventeen years’ imprisonment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the side-switching doctrine applies in criminal cases.	Chappelle contends the doctrine bars Hollings because of a confidential relationship.	Commonwealth argues the doctrine is in civil context and not applicable here.	Assuming applicability, no actual disclosure was proven, so test for disqualification not met.
Whether appellant proved actual disclosure of confidential information to Hollings.	Chappelle argues his confidential communications were disclosed to Hollings.	Commonwealth contends appellant failed to show specific disclosures in record.	Appellant failed to meet the actual-disclosure prong of Turner.
Whether the statutory preclusion argument was preserved for appeal.	Chappelle contends the insanity-evaluation statutes preclude Hollings’ testimony.	Commonwealth asserts the issue was not preserved for review under Rule 5A:18.	Waived under Rule 5A:18; not reviewable on appeal.

Turner v. Thiel, 262 Va. 597 (2001) (two-part test for confidentiality and disclosures in expert disqualification)
Kitt v. Crosby, 277 Va. 396 (2009) (confidential information prong requirement; evidence needed for disclosure)
Jiron-Garcia v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 638 (2006) (unsupported statements cannot substitute for record evidence in proving disclosure)
Head v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 163 (1986) (Rule 5A:18 preservation principle for appellate review)