Chaine v. Commonwealth
18 Va. App. 301
Va. Ct. App.
1994
Check Treatment

Dissenting Opinion

Baker, J., with whom Moon, C.J.,

joins, dissenting.

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s finding that “the trial judge’s response is a clear acknowledgment that he understood the issue.” Counsel for appellant candidly admitted that he did not raise the double jeopardy issue, yet the majority holds that the *302trial court ruled on that issue. Respectfully, I suggest that the majority has given new meaning to the word “specificity” contained in Rule 5A:18. I would affirm the trial court’s judgment because appellant failed to meet the specificity requirement of Rule 5A:18.





Rehearing

UPON A REHEARING EN BANC

Opinion

In Chaine v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 179, 436 S.E.2d 187 (1993), a majority of a panel of this Court reversed a conviction for violation of Code § 18.2-361. The Commonwealth’s petition for rehearing en banc was granted and heard on February 18, 1994. For the reasons stated in the panel’s majority opinion, we reverse the conviction and lift the stay of this Court’s October 12, 1993, mandate.

Reversed.