Alvarez E. Gonzalez v Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Bray, Frank and Senior Judge Baker
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
ALVAREZ E. GONZALEZ
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. 	Record No. 2275-98-1 	JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER
JUNE 29, 1999
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK
Marc Jacobson, Judge
Ronald Batliner, Jr. (Mason & Batliner, P.C.,
on brief), for appellant.
Jeffrey S. Shapiro, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Alvarez E. Gonzalez (appellant) appeals from his bench trial
conviction by the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk (trial
court) for taking indecent liberties with an eleven-year-old
child. 	The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the
trial court erred when it took judicial notice that appellant had
testified under oath at his arraignment that his date of birth was
September 6, 1958. 	At trial, when the trial court stated it was
taking judicial notice of that fact, appellant failed to preserve
that issue by stating an objection with specificity, as required
by Rule 5A:18.

"No ruling of the trial court . . . will
be considered as a basis for reversal unless
the objection was stated together with the
grounds therefor at the time of the ruling,
except for good cause shown or to enable the
Court of Appeals to attains the ends of
justice." 	Rule 5A:18 serves an important
function during the conduct of a trial. 	It
places the parties on notice that they must
give the trial court the first opportunity
to rule on disputed evidentiary and
procedural questions. 	The purpose of this
rule is to allow correction of an error if
possible during the trial, thereby avoiding
the necessity of mistrials and reversals.
To hold otherwise would invite parties to
remain silent at trial, possibly resulting
in the trial court committing needless
error. 	In order to avoid this result, we
adhere to the policy of placing an
affirmative duty on the parties to enter
timely objections to rulings made during the
trial.
Gardner v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 418, 423, 350 S.E.2d 229,
232 (1986).
In our review of the record, we find no reason to apply the
ends of justice principle to this case.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 2 -