Larry Ramirez Miller v Commonwealth

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Chief Judge Moon, Judges Willis and Bray
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
LARRY RAMIREZ MILLER
v. 	Record No. 1986-93-1
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
and 	JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
JUNE 13, 1995
LARRY RAMIREZ MILLER
v. 	Record No. 2091-93-1
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
Edward W. Hanson, Jr., Judge
George H. Yates for appellant.
Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General
(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
I.
Miller contends that the trial court erred in instructing
the jury that the self-inculpatory testimony of his brother,
Robert Miller, could not be used by the Commonwealth in
prosecuting charges against Robert. 	Miller further contends that
the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the testimony
of Robert's wife, Cheryl, could not be used by the Commonwealth
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

- 2 -
in prosecuting charges against Robert.
When the two questioned instructions were proposed by the
Commonwealth, the following dialogue occurred between the court
and defense counsel:
MR. YATES (defense counsel): 	I had a couple other
objections, Your Honor. 	Mr. Alberi has gone back and
now wants the court to instruct the jury in his
testimony witnesses committed one or more crimes.
Unless that witness was testifying in his own behalf,
his testimony in this trial cannot be used as evidence
against him. 	That is quoting right from a statute. 	It
is the law.
THE COURT: 	Are you objecting to it?
MR. YATES: 	I'm objecting to it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: 	What basis? 	I think that is a proper
instruction because it deals with the credibility of
your witness. 	The jury should know that.
MR. YATES: 	All right, Your Honor. 	There is a marital
privilege instruction here.
THE COURT: 	Right. 	I think that affects the
credibility of another one of your witnesses. 	I'm
going to give that also.
At no time did defense counsel state any ground for his objection
to either instruction. 	Therefore, we will not consider on appeal
arguments challenging the correctness of those instructions.
Rule 5A:18.
We find no cause to invoke the ends of justice exception to
the application of Rule 5A:18. 	The two instructions were correct
statements of the law and properly addressed the credibility of
the witnesses.
II.

- 3 -
Miller contends that because his malicious wounding
conviction was the basis for the revocation of the suspension of
a previous sentence, that revocation should be reversed. 	Because
we find no error in the malicious wounding conviction, we find no
error in the revocation of the suspension of Miller's earlier
sentence.
The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
Affirmed.