# Porter v. Com.

> Supreme Court of Virginia · June 6, 2008 · 276 Va. 203

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1058473

## Case

- **Full name:** Thomas Alexander PORTER v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Virginia
- **Decided:** June 6, 2008
- **Citations:** 276 Va. 203; 661 S.E.2d 415; 2008 Va. LEXIS 78
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** G. Steven Agee
- **Cited by:** 283 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1058473

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the Virginia APA “exempts actions of agencies relating to ‘[i]nmates of prisons or other such facilities or parolees therefrom,’ ” that “the Virginia Department of Corrections is an agency whose sole purpose is related to inmates of prisons,” and that the Departme…
- explaining that a trial court " 'by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.... The abuse-of-discretion standard includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.’ ” (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 8…
- explaining that a trial court “‘by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law. . . . The abuse-of-discretion standard includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.’” (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. …
- recognizing that in-court practices that present an unacceptable risk of “impermissible factors coming into play” are inherently prejudicial and “pose an unacceptable threat to a defendant’s right to a fair trial”
- holding an action of a court without subject matter jurisdiction to be void and the action of a court without territorial jurisdiction or jurisdiction over persons, things, or occurrences located in a defined geographic area to be voidable

## Opinion text

Present: All the Justices

THOMAS ALEXANDER PORTER
OPINION BY
v. Record Nos. 071928 JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE
& 071929 June 6, 2008

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK
Charles D. Griffith, Jr., Judge

In this appeal, we review the capital murder

conviction and sentence of death imposed upon Thomas

Alexander Porter in the Circuit Court of the City of

Norfolk. In the first stage of a bifurcated trial

conducted under Code § 19.2-264.3, a jury convicted Porter

of capital murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a

felony, and grand larceny. 1 In the penalty phase of the

trial, the jury found the aggravating factor of future

dangerousness and fixed Porter’s sentence at death for the

capital murder charge and a combined twenty-two years for

the two other charges. The circuit court sentenced Porter

in accordance with the jury’s verdicts and entered final

judgment.

1
Porter was also charged with one count of possessing
a firearm as a previously convicted felon in violation of
Code § 18.2-308.2. An order of nolle prosequi as to that
charge was entered on July 16, 2007.
We review the circuit court’s judgment and death

sentence pursuant to Code § 17.1-313(A). 2 After mature

consideration of Porter’s assignments of error, the record,

and the arguments of counsel, we find no error in the

judgment of the circuit court and will affirm that

judgment, including the sentence of death.

I. BACKGROUND AND MATERIAL PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Under well-settled principles of appellate review, we

consider the evidence presented at trial in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the

circuit court. Gray v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 290, 295, 645

S.E.2d 448, 452 (2007), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128

S.Ct. 1111 (2008); Juniper v. Commonwealth, 271 Va. 362,

376, 626 S.E.2d 383, 393, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127

S.Ct. 397 (2006).

A. FACTS ADDUCED AT TRIAL 3

At approximately 3:30 p.m. on October 28, 2005, Porter

and Reginald Copeland traveled in Porter’s Jeep to the Park

Place apartment complex located at 2715 DeBree Avenue in

the City of Norfolk to inquire about purchasing marijuana.

2
Porter has not assigned error to his convictions on
the non-capital offenses. Accordingly, those convictions
are final and are not before us in this appeal.
3
Certain facts relating to the specific assignments of
error will be stated or more fully described in the later
discussion of a particular assignment of error.

2
Porter was carrying a concealed, nine-millimeter Jennings

semi-automatic pistol. The two men entered the apartment

of Valorie Arrington, where several people were present,

including Valorie and her daughters, Latoria and Latifa;

Valorie’s cousins, Monica Dickens and April Phillips;

Valorie’s sister, Monique Arrington, also known as Monika;

and Monique’s daughter, Lamia.

Once inside, Porter began arguing with the women,

brandishing his gun, and threatening that he might shoot

one of them if provoked. Copeland left the residence, but

Porter remained behind, locking the door so Copeland could

not reenter. After being locked out of Valorie’s

apartment, Copeland walked away from the apartment complex

and happened upon three uniformed police officers a block

away, including Norfolk Police Officer Stanley Reaves.

Copeland reported Porter’s behavior to Officer Reaves and

directed him to Valorie’s apartment.

Officer Reaves drove his police cruiser to the front

curb of the apartment building, parked the car, and walked

across the grass towards the sidewalk leading from the

street to the apartment door. As Officer Reaves approached

the apartment, Porter left Valorie’s apartment and began

walking away. Officer Reaves confronted Porter, grabbed

Porter’s left arm, and instructed him to take his hands out

3
of his pockets. Porter then drew his concealed weapon from

his pocket and fired three times, killing Officer Reaves.

Porter took Officer Reaves’ service pistol and then fled in

his Jeep.

Several eyewitnesses, along with Porter, testified at

trial and provided various descriptions of the events

leading up to and immediately following Officer Reaves’

death. Copeland testified that he was standing in a

parking lot on the afternoon of Officer Reaves’ death when

Porter approached him. They decided to get into a Jeep

Grand Cherokee that Porter was driving and go to Valorie’s

apartment to purchase marijuana.

Copeland testified that he and Porter entered

Valorie’s apartment because she was Copeland’s friend and

because he had smoked marijuana with her before. Once

inside, they met Valorie and the other women who informed

Copeland and Porter that they did not have any marijuana.

The group then talked about various subjects, including a

child’s birthday party, but at some point in the

conversation Porter began arguing with one of the women.

Copeland “didn’t know what to do” but left the

apartment and “ran down [to the next block] and told

[Officer Reaves, ‘]Look, there is a man up in the house

with some girls, and he shouldn’t be in there.’” Copeland

4
described the apartment building to Officer Reaves, and

Officer Reaves drove his patrol car to the building with

Copeland “running behind” the vehicle. Officer Reaves

arrived at the building before Copeland, and as Copeland

approached he saw “Officer Reaves in the car and Porter was

coming out [of] the building.” Copeland identified Porter

to Officer Reaves, and Officer Reaves instructed Copeland

to stay back and then approached Porter. Moments later,

Porter and Officer Reaves disappeared from Copeland’s

viewpoint behind a parked van, but Copeland “heard gunshots

and started running,” and he “ran and told the [other]

officers what happened.”

Melvin Spruill, Jr., owner of the apartment complex,

testified that he was picking up trash in the yard, when he

“noticed a police car sitting on the corner” parked

directly behind his van. Spruill entered his van and was

preparing to leave when he noticed Officer Reaves talking

with Porter. “[O]ut of the corner of [his] eye” Spruill

saw Porter’s hands drop down, raise up again with a gun,

and then he heard a gunshot. Spruill ducked and “heard

another shot . . . [, m]aybe two shots,” and then saw

Porter run away. Spruill testified that he never saw

Officer Reaves holding a gun, nor did he hear arguing

between the two men before Porter shot Officer Reaves.

5
Simone Coleman testified that she was walking on the

sidewalk near the apartment complex when she saw Officer

Reaves’ patrol car arrive. Coleman watched as Officer

Reaves stepped out of his patrol car, and she saw Porter

walking across the grass from the apartment, coming to

“within a few feet” of her. She testified that Porter’s

hands were “[i]n his pockets” as Coleman passed by, and she

“was looking back” to watch the confrontation between

Officer Reaves and Porter. Coleman heard Officer Reaves

instruct Porter to “take his hands out of his pockets,” and

then Officer Reaves “grabbed Mr. Porter’s left arm.”

Coleman testified that Officer Reaves “didn’t have a gun

out,” and that Porter, in response to Officer Reaves

grabbing his arm, pulled a gun out of his pocket, pointed

the gun at Officer Reaves’ head, and pulled the trigger.

Coleman watched Officer Reaves collapse to the ground, and

she testified that Porter then shot Officer Reaves two more

times. Coleman identified Porter in court as the man who

killed Officer Reaves.

Selethia Anderson, who lived across the street from

the apartment complex, was sitting on her front porch when

she saw Officer Reaves arrive. Anderson testified that she

watched Officer Reaves exit his vehicle and walk towards

Porter as Porter was leaving the apartment complex. She

6
described how Officer Reaves confronted Porter and “used

his right hand to grab [Porter’s] left hand,” and then

Porter immediately reached into his hoodie pocket with his

right hand, pulled out a gun, and shot Officer Reaves in

the head. Anderson testified that after Officer Reaves

fell, Porter shot him twice more “between the back of the

head and neck.” According to Anderson, Porter knelt over

Officer Reaves’ body after the shooting, and when Porter

left the scene, he was carrying a “bigger gun” than the one

he had used to shoot Officer Reaves. Anderson identified

Porter in court as the man who shot Officer Reaves.

Valorie testified that she was in her apartment that

afternoon when Copeland arrived with Porter. According to

Valorie, the two men “came for some marijuana” but the

women did not have any, and asked the men to leave.

Copeland agreed to leave, but Porter stayed inside, locked

the door and kept Copeland outside. Valorie testified that

she felt scared because Porter had “locked us in our own

house.” Valorie asked Porter why his hands were in his

sweatshirt pocket, and Porter responded by pulling out his

gun and asking, “[s]o are you going to give me the bag of

weed or what?” Valorie testified that she uttered a

prayer, and when Porter realized she was a Muslim, he told

the women that they were “lucky” and he put away the gun.

7
When Porter realized a police car had arrived, he left the

apartment and ran “like some horses going down the stairs.”

Moments later, Valorie heard gunshots.

Latoria’s testimony confirmed that Porter entered

Valorie’s apartment along with Copeland, and that Copeland

left the apartment but Porter remained inside, locking the

door. Latoria testified that Porter threatened that he

would “get to clapping” if any of the women made a sudden

move, and she explained that “clapping” was a term for

“shooting.” She testified that she looked out the window,

noticed Officer Reaves arrive in his patrol car, and asked,

“Why is Reggie [Copeland] talking to the police officer?”

Latoria testified that Porter then immediately exited the

apartment, and she watched through the window as Officer

Reaves approached Porter, grabbed Porter’s arm, and then

Porter “reach[ed] into his right pocket and he pull[ed] out

his gun and he shot him.” Latoria testified that Officer

Reaves did not have a weapon drawn when Porter shot him.

Dickens’ testimony confirmed Valorie’s and Latoria’s

accounts of the confrontation in Valorie’s apartment

between Porter and the women. Dickens testified that

Porter threatened to “get to clapping” if any of the women

began “talking smack.” Dickens explained that she “was

just real afraid right then for my whole family.” Dickens

8
testified that Porter left the apartment immediately when

he learned that a police car had arrived, and she went to

the window to watch what was happening. Dickens watched

Officer Reaves approach Porter, grab Porter’s arm, and then

Porter “put the gun to his head” and shot Officer Reaves. 4

Monika also testified that Porter entered Valorie’s

apartment with Copeland but stayed inside and locked the

door after Copeland left. Monika confirmed that Porter

threatened to “get it clapping in here with all y’all” and

explained that “‘[c]lapping’ means you shoot somebody.”

Monika testified that when Porter learned that a police

vehicle had arrived outside, he left the apartment

immediately and began walking away. Monika testified that

she watched out the window as “[t]he police officer grabbed

Porter’s arm,” and Porter “pulled the gun out of his pocket

and put it to [Officer Reaves’] forehead,” and pulled the

trigger. Monika testified that Officer Reaves “never drew

his weapon. He got out of his car and walked over to

Porter as if he just wanted to talk to him and that was

it.”

Robert Vontoure, a Navy seaman who lived across the

street from where the shooting occurred, testified that he

4
Dickens was never questioned as to whether she saw
Officer Reaves draw his weapon.

9
arrived home from work and noticed a Jeep which he did not

recognize parked outside his home. Vontoure explained that

he was in his home, “sitting there watching TV and . . .

heard gunshots.” Vontoure looked outside the window “and

saw a gentleman coming running across our lawn, jump into

the Jeep and leave.” Vontoure identified Porter in court

as the man who fled the scene in the Jeep vehicle.

After killing Officer Reaves, Porter traveled to New

York City where he was apprehended one month later in White

Plains, New York. The murder weapon was found in his

possession at the time of his arrest. Officer Reaves’ gun

was eventually located in Yonkers, New York.

The autopsy report revealed that Officer Reaves

suffered three close-range wounds to his head: one to the

forehead, one to the left back of the head, and a flesh

wound near the right ear. “The cause of death was two

separate close range gunshot wounds to the head.”

Porter did not dispute that he shot Officer Reaves,

but his version of the events differed from that of the

eyewitnesses. Porter testified in his own defense that he

drove to Valorie’s apartment with Copeland “[t]o get a bag

of marijuana” because Copeland was his “means of getting

marijuana.” Porter parked the vehicle outside the

apartment, and he “grabbed the gun out of the glove

10
compartment box” before leaving the vehicle “[b]ecause the

area . . . is a bad area.” Porter testified that he gave

Copeland $10 to purchase marijuana, and that he waited

outside while Copeland went inside to make the purchase.

Porter testified that after a few minutes had passed,

Copeland emerged from an upstairs apartment and invited him

inside. Porter confirmed that Copeland left the apartment,

but Porter denied locking the door and keeping Copeland

outside. Porter also denied brandishing his gun inside the

apartment or making a statement about shooting any of the

women. Porter claimed that he left the apartment when he

learned from the women that Copeland had not paid them for

marijuana, and he denied that any of the women knew about

Officer Reaves’ arrival because “[w]asn’t nobody even

looking out the window.”

Porter testified that he left the apartment and was

walking to his vehicle “when Officer Reaves stepped in

front of me and grabbed me.” Porter and his counsel then

had the following exchange:

Q. Did anything else happen when he did that?

A. Yes. I seen him pulling his gun.

Q. What do you mean, you saw him pulling his
gun?

A. Well, when he grabbed me with his left arm
on my left arm, we were still standing face to

11
face. I seen him pulling his gun. That’s when I
put my hands up in the air and backed up, looking
at him, like, “What [are] you doing?”

Q. You just described that you put your hands
up in the air?

A. Yes.

Q. And at that point, what happened?

A. Well, I got my hands in the air when he
finally gets the gun out and point it at me. I
take my hands down and pull my gun and started
shooting.

Q. Why did you do that, Mr. Porter?

A. Because I was scared. I thought he was
going to kill me because he looked angry at the
time, so I was just worried for my safety.

Porter testified on direct examination that he could not

remember how many times he pulled the trigger, but after he

shot Officer Reaves, he bent down, picked up Officer

Reaves’ gun and ran. Porter explained that he left the

scene because he “was scared” because he realized he “just

killed an officer.”

Porter testified repeatedly on cross-examination that

he “never wanted to kill anybody” but he also admitted that

he “pulled out the gun” and “shot [Officer Reaves] in the

forehead.” Porter and opposing counsel had this exchange

on cross-examination:

Q. You meant to hit Stanley Reaves with a
bullet, didn’t you?

12
A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. And you took aim – therefore,
you took aim at him, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You took aim at a part of his body, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the part of his body that you took aim
at and then before pulling the trigger from less
than six inches away was directly into his
forehead, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

. . . .

Q. And you agree that you knew you were aiming
at his head, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Porter also had this exchange on cross-examination:

Q. You admit that you . . . pulled your gun
out?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that you shot him in the head?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You admit that you stole his gun?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So according to your version of events, you
claim that Officer Reaves pulled his gun,
correct?

A. Yes.

13
Q. And the only thing about the crime that’s
alleged you committed, the capital murder of
Officer Stanley Reaves, using a gun to commit
that murder and stealing Officer Reaves’ gun, the
only part of the crime that we’re here that
you’re on trial for that you dispute, really, is
the reason why you shot Officer Reaves; is that
correct?

A. Yes.

B. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE AND DURING TRIAL

Porter filed a motion before trial for a change of

venue, to which the Commonwealth consented. The circuit

court, Judge Charles D. Griffith presiding, entered an

order granting the motion and a subsequent order “that the

trial of the above referenced case be transferred to the

Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit located in

Arlington, Virginia.” The circuit court also granted

Porter’s motion to appoint William J. Stejskal, Ph.D., as a

mitigation expert “to evaluate the Defendant and to assist

the defense in accordance with the provisions of Code

§ 19.2-264.3:1.” Similarly, the circuit court granted

Porter’s motion and appointed Bernice Anne Marcopulos,

Ph.D., ABPP-Cn, as a clinical neuropsychologist expert to

assist the defense.

The Commonwealth filed a motion in limine requesting

that evidence of Porter’s prior felony convictions be

admissible during the guilt stage of the trial. The

14
Commonwealth requested to present the evidence that Porter

“knew he [Porter] was a convicted felon who faced the

prospect of being sent to prison for five (5) years should

Officer Stanley Reaves . . . have discovered the defendant

to have been in possession of a firearm while a felon.”

Over Porter’s objection, the circuit court granted the

Commonwealth’s motion permitting the introduction of

evidence during the trial that Porter was a “convicted

violent felon.”

On January 5, 2007, Porter filed a “Motion for

Appointment of Expert on Prison Risk Assessment and to

Introduce Evidence on Prison Violence and Security”

(“Prison Expert Motion”), requesting that the circuit court

appoint Dr. Mark Cunningham as “an expert on the assessment

of the risk of violence by prison inmates and, in

particular, the risk of future dangerousness posed by the

Defendant if incarcerated in a Virginia penitentiary for

life.” The court heard arguments on the motion and

determined that the other experts already appointed “are

going to be able to talk about [Porter's] background, his

social history and things relating to that." The circuit

court noted that this Court “has consistently upheld the

denial of use of public funds for such an expert, as it’s

not considered to be . . . proper mitigation evidence;

15
therefore not relevant to capital sentencing” and denied

the motion. Porter also filed a motion challenging the

constitutionality of Virginia’s execution protocols for

lethal injection and electrocution, which the court denied.

Porter’s trial, with Judge Griffith presiding,

commenced in Arlington County on February 26, 2007, and

continued through March 14, 2007. On the afternoon of

March 2, 2007, Porter objected to the position of two

deputies who had been standing about four feet behind him,

arguing that their presence standing, as opposed to

sitting, prejudiced the jury. Porter subsequently filed a

written motion and memorandum in support challenging the

courtroom security arrangement. After hearing Porter’s

motion, the circuit court noted that Porter had previously

resisted deputies’ instructions while in custody and had

tampered with his restraints. The court found that sitting

would reduce the deputies’ field of vision, and declined to

order them to be seated. Porter later raised the issue for

a third time and moved for a mistrial, which the court

denied.

Upon presentation of all the evidence at the guilt

stage, the parties argued jury instructions. Porter

proposed a “second-degree murder instruction directly out

of the model jury instructions” based on evidence that

16
Porter shot Officer Reaves “in rapid succession, boom,

boom, boom,” and “that this act was not premeditated.” The

Commonwealth argued that the court should refuse the

second-degree murder instruction because Porter’s “own

testimony is that he willfully and purposely and with

deliberation pulled the gun out and aimed it at Officer

Reaves and fired it.” The court denied Porter’s requested

instruction.

C. PENALTY PHASE

During the penalty stage of the proceedings, the

Commonwealth presented evidence in aggravation, which

included Porter’s prior convictions of misdemeanor carrying

a concealed weapon in 1994, felony robbery and use of a

firearm during the commission of a felony in 1994,

misdemeanor disturbing the peace, misdemeanor assault and

battery and misdemeanor threatening a police officer and

resisting arrest in 1996, felony possession of heroin,

felony possession of a firearm with drugs, and felony

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in 1997,

misdemeanor assault and battery in 1997, and misdemeanor

obstruction of justice in 2005. The Commonwealth presented

evidence of several incidents while Porter was

incarcerated, including altercations between Porter, fellow

inmates, and prison guards. The Commonwealth also

17
introduced audiotapes of portions of two telephone

conversations between Porter and an unidentified female

recorded during Porter’s incarceration, which the

Commonwealth introduced because they “are directly relevant

to the issue of the defendant’s lack of remorse” and

included Porter bragging that he was a “good shot.”

The Commonwealth also introduced the testimony of

Officer Reaves’ wife and sister, and each described the

devastating impact of Officer Reaves’ death upon his

extended family. Porter presented mitigation evidence

which included testimony of his mother and sister as to his

childhood, family life and educational background.

The jury’s verdict found “unanimously and beyond a

reasonable doubt, after consideration of his history and

background, that there is a probability that he . . . would

commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a

continuing serious threat to society,” and sentenced Porter

to death. After receipt of the presentence report, the

circuit court confirmed the jury’s verdict and sentenced

Porter to death for the capital murder of Officer Reaves.

II. ANALYSIS

A. ABANDONED ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Prior to filing his opening brief, Porter submitted a

list of twenty-one assignments of error in accord with Rule

18
5:22(b). However, only nine of those assignments of error

have been briefed and argued by Porter. 5 Accordingly, the

other twelve assignments of error have been abandoned and

will not be considered in this opinion. Rule 5:17(c); see

also Teleguz v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 458, 471, 643 S.E.2d

708, 717 (2007). In this opinion, we will refer to the

nine assignments of error as numbered in Porter’s Brief of

Appellant.

B. JURISDICTION UPON TRANSFER

Before addressing Porter’s assignments of error, we

first consider an issue raised sua sponte by this Court and

addressed by the parties in supplemental briefs and

argument. Based on our review of the record, we inquired

whether the transfer of Porter’s trial to Arlington (and

the subsequent transfer back to Norfolk after the jury’s

verdicts) created issues of either subject matter or

territorial jurisdiction that would affect the judgments

rendered by the circuit court.

Well in advance of trial, Porter filed a motion in the

Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk requesting a change of

venue and to which the Commonwealth agreed. The circuit

5
As numbered in Porter’s initial assignments of error,
Porter has failed to present any brief or argument with
respect to assignments of error 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14,
15, 18, 19, and 20.

19
court then entered an order on September 13, 2006, which

granted a “change of venue” but did not specify a new

location for trial. On October 2, 2006, the circuit court

entered another order which “orders that the trial of the

above-referenced case be transferred to the circuit court

of the Fourth Judicial Circuit located in Arlington,

Virginia.” The Circuit Court of the County of Arlington

(“Arlington”) is the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit. The

Fourth Judicial Circuit is limited to the City of Norfolk

(“Norfolk”). It is unclear from the circuit court’s order

whether it was transferring the place of trial with the

Norfolk Circuit Court sitting in Arlington or whether it

was intended that the trial be conducted in Arlington as a

trial in that circuit. Subsequent to these orders, a

number of additional orders were entered in Norfolk under

the caption of the Norfolk Circuit Court; 6 none of these

orders related to the change of venue.

6
These comprise 11 orders, including: an order
entered October 23, 2006, denying Porter’s motion to quash
a subpoena duces tecum and granting a motion in limine by
the Commonwealth; an order for scientific investigation
also entered October 23, 2006; an order entered November 3,
2006, granting funding for defense counsel’s and Porter’s
witnesses’ hotel accommodations in Arlington; an order
entered January 8, 2007, appointing Porter’s
neuropsychologist; an order entered January 16, 2007,
granting Porter’s motion for additional neuropsychological
evaluation but denying his motions to distribute a jury
questionnaire, to suppress, and to allow cameras in the

20
Porter’s trial began in Arlington, with Judge Griffith

sitting as the trial judge, on February 26, 2007. A series

of “felony trial orders” were entered, all with the caption

“In the Circuit Court of the County of Arlington,” and

reflecting the trial proceedings from February 26 to March

14. However, all these orders were entered on the same

date, July 13, 2007, on stationery of the Clerk of the

Circuit Court of Norfolk. 7

The felony trial orders recited the trial proceedings

on the respective dates and none were endorsed by counsel.

courtroom; an order denying Porter’s motion to prohibit law
enforcement spectators from wearing their uniforms in the
gallery also entered January 16, 2007; three orders for the
transportation of witnesses in custody entered January 18
and February 22, 2007; an order entered February 13, 2007,
granting Porter’s motion for the appointment of a qualified
mental health expert; and an order entered February 16,
2007, denying Porter’s motion to declare the death penalty
unconstitutional, taking under advisement his motion to
enjoin the Commonwealth from conducting lethal injections,
and granting his proposed voir dire questions.
7
These comprise 13 orders, dated February 26 through
28; March 1 and 2; March 5 through 9; and March 12 through
14, 2007. Each order summarizes that day’s trial
proceedings and all but four are unremarkable. The order
dated February 26 recounts Porter’s arraignment and the
voir dire and empanelling of the jury. The order dated
March 7 recounts the jury’s verdict of guilty on the
charges of capital murder, use of a firearm in the
commission of a felony, and grand larceny. The order dated
March 8 recounts the jury’s sentencing recommendation on
the charges of use of a firearm in the commission of a
felony and grand larceny. The order dated March 14
recounts the jury’s recommendation of the death sentence on
the charge of capital murder and continues proceedings to
the Circuit Court of Norfolk on July 16.

21
These orders included an order of March 7, 2007, which set

out the jury’s verdict of guilty on the charge of capital

murder as well as a March 14, 2007, order reciting the

jury’s sentence of death. In that same March 14, 2007,

order, the circuit court confirmed the jury verdict and

found Porter guilty of capital murder, but also granted his

motion “to refer this matter to the Probation Office for

the Circuit Court of Norfolk, Virginia” and continued the

case to July 16, 2007 “in the Circuit Court of the City of

Norfolk.” All remaining orders in the record reflect the

caption of the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk

including the July 18, 2007 order sentencing Porter to

death.

At no place does the record reflect that Porter

questioned or inquired into the circuit court’s authority

to sit in Arlington, to try the case in Arlington, or to

undertake any of the later proceedings in Norfolk. More

importantly, Porter has never objected to any defect, real

or imagined, relating to the circuit court’s jurisdiction

or authority to act in either Arlington or Norfolk. In

fact, during the course of the trial in Arlington, Porter

filed five motions captioned “In the Circuit Court of

22
Norfolk County [sic] (sitting in Arlington County).” 8 There

can be no question that Porter was fully cognizant of, and

actively participated in, a trial in Arlington pursuant to

his motion to change venue, which he knew was being

conducted by the same circuit court judge who began (and

concluded) the case in Norfolk.

The record does not contain an order under Code

§ 17.1-105, or otherwise, designating Judge Griffith to sit

in the Circuit Court of Arlington County. The record also

does not contain an order, as would appear to be required

by Code § 19.2-253, whereby the Clerk of the Circuit Court

of the City of Norfolk transmitted the record in Porter’s

case to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Arlington County

so that “such court shall proceed with the case as if the

prosecution had been originally therein.”

With this factual background in mind, Porter now

argues in response to our inquiry that the judgments of

conviction and sentence are void because “the provisions of

§ 17.1-105 are mandatory and limit a court’s otherwise

rightful exercise of its subject matter jurisdiction.”

Porter cites our decision in Moore v. Commonwealth, 259 Va.

8
These comprise Porter’s motion for relief from
excessive in-court security, with accompanying memorandum
in support, and four memoranda in support of his motions
requesting jury instructions.

23
431, 527 S.E.2d 406 (2000) to support his argument. The

Commonwealth responds by noting that Code § 17.1-513 grants

subject matter jurisdiction in felony cases to all circuit

courts and argues the Norfolk Circuit Court was never

divested of that authority. Consequently, the Commonwealth

concludes the orders of the circuit court could not be

void, but at most voidable, and that Porter has waived any

objections to voidable orders.

Upon consideration of the arguments, briefs and our

precedent, we conclude that a lack of subject matter

jurisdiction is not implicated in this case and that any

irregularities as to the circuit court’s authority raised

at most an issue of territorial jurisdiction, which was

waived by Porter’s failure to timely object to any such

defect.

Jurisdiction is a term which can engender much

confusion because it encompasses a variety of separate and

distinct legal concepts. We addressed this topic and

differentiated the categories of jurisdiction in Morrison

v. Bestler, 239 Va. 166, 387 S.E.2d 753 (1990).

A court may lack the requisite “jurisdiction” to
proceed to an adjudication on the merits for a
variety of reasons.

The term jurisdiction embraces several
concepts including subject matter jurisdiction,
which is the authority granted through

24
constitution or statute to adjudicate a class of
cases or controversies; territorial jurisdiction,
that is, authority over persons, things, or
occurrences located in a defined geographic area;
notice jurisdiction, or effective notice to a
party or if the proceeding is in rem seizure of a
res; and “the other conditions of fact must exist
which are demanded by the unwritten or statute
law as the prerequisites of the authority of the
court to proceed to judgment or decree.” Farant
Inv. Corp. v. Francis, 138 Va. 417, 427-28, 122
S.E. 141, 144 (1924).

While these elements are necessary to enable
a court to proceed to a valid judgment, there is
a significant difference between subject matter
jurisdiction and the other “jurisdictional”
elements. Subject matter jurisdiction alone
cannot be waived or conferred on the court by
agreement of the parties. Lucas v. Biller, 204
Va. 309, 313, 130 S.E.2d 582, 585 (1963). A
defect in subject matter jurisdiction cannot be
cured by reissuance of process, passage of time,
or pleading amendment. While a court always has
jurisdiction to determine whether it has subject
matter jurisdiction, a judgment on the merits
made without subject matter jurisdiction is null
and void. Barnes v. American Fert. Co., 144 Va.
692, 705, 130 S.E. 902, 906 (1925). Likewise,
any subsequent proceeding based on such a
defective judgment is void or a nullity. Ferry
Co. v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 428, 432, 83 S.E.2d
782, 784 (1954).

Even more significant, the lack of subject
matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time in
the proceedings, even for the first time on
appeal by the court sua sponte. Thacker v.
Hubard, 122 Va. 379, 386, 94 S.E. 929, 930
(1918). In contrast, defects in the other
jurisdictional elements generally will be
considered waived unless raised in the pleadings
filed with the trial court and properly preserved
on appeal. Rule 5:25.

One consequence of the non-waivable nature
of the requirement of subject matter jurisdiction

25
is that attempts are sometimes made to
mischaracterize other serious procedural errors
as defects in subject matter jurisdiction to gain
an opportunity for review of matters not
otherwise preserved. See Restatement (Second) of
Judgments, § 11 (1980).

Id. at 169-70, 387 S.E.2d at 755-56.

Our recitation in Morrison reflects the long-standing

distinction between subject matter jurisdiction, which

cannot be granted or waived by the parties and the lack of

which renders an act of the court void, and territorial

jurisdiction or venue. The latter goes to the authority of

the court to act in particular circumstances or places and

is waived if not properly and timely raised. The judgment

of a court which is defective in territorial jurisdiction

or venue is thus only voidable and not void. Id.; Southern

Sand and Gravel Company, Inc. v. Massaponax Sand and Gravel

Corporation, 145 Va. 317, 326, 133 S.E. 812, 814 (1926).

All the circuit courts of the Commonwealth “have

original jurisdiction of all indictments for felonies and

of presentments, informations and indictments for

misdemeanors.” Code § 17.1-513. As we recognized in Garza

v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 559, 323 S.E.2d 127 (1984), this

statute means what it says. “[A]ll circuit courts have

jurisdiction over all felonies committed in the

Commonwealth.” Id. at 566, 323 S.E.2d at 130. Thus, both

26
the Norfolk Circuit Court and the Arlington Circuit Court

had subject matter jurisdiction for the trial of the

charges against Porter.

Even though Porter did not raise the argument, we note

that the grant of subject matter jurisdiction under Code

§ 17.1-513 is not limited by Code § 19.2-239, which sets

forth that “[t]he circuit courts, except where otherwise

provided, shall have exclusive original jurisdiction for

the trial of all presentments, indictments and informations

for offenses committed within their respective circuits.”

(Emphasis added.) The jurisdiction referenced in Code

§ 19.2-239 is a grant of territorial jurisdiction, not the

subject matter jurisdiction conferred under Code § 17.1-

513.

We reach this conclusion for at least two reasons.

First, if Code § 19.2-239 dealt with subject matter

jurisdiction, such a construction would render the Code

§ 17.1-513 grant of “original jurisdiction of all . . .

felonies” to all circuit courts to be meaningless and

superfluous. Such a statutory construction is to be

avoided. “The rules of statutory interpretation argue

against reading any legislative enactment in a manner that

will make a portion of it useless, repetitious, or absurd.

On the contrary, it is well established that every act of

27
the legislature should be read so as to give reasonable

effect to every word . . . .” Jones v. Conwell, 227 Va.

176, 181, 314 S.E.2d 61, 64 (1984). “[E]very part of a

statute is presumed to have some effect and no part will be

considered meaningless unless absolutely necessary.”

Hubbard v. Henrico Ltd. P’ship, 255 Va. 335, 340, 497

S.E.2d 335, 338 (1998).

In addition, Code § 19.2-239 contains the clear

proviso “except where otherwise provided.” The change of

venue statute, Code § 19.2-251, “otherwise provide[s],” and

venue was changed in this case. As a matter of law, venue

cannot be an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, and that

“otherwise provided” example confirms Code § 19.2-239 could

not encompass subject matter jurisdiction. “Venue and

jurisdiction, though sometimes confounded, are, accurately

speaking, separate and distinct matters. Jurisdiction is

authority to hear and determine a cause, or it may be

defined to be the right to adjudicate concerning the

subject matter in the given case. . . . Venue is merely the

place of trial . . . .” Texaco, Inc. v. Runyon, 207 Va.

367, 370, 150 S.E.2d 132, 135 (1966) (internal quotation

marks omitted).

Thus, while both the Arlington and Norfolk circuit

courts had subject matter jurisdiction over Porter’s

28
charges under Code § 17.1-513, the authority to conduct

that trial, that is, the territorial jurisdiction

authorizing the court to adjudicate among the parties at a

particular place, was initially in the Norfolk Circuit

Court, as the place of the offense, under Code § 19.2-239.

Nonetheless, if trial was had in Arlington, so that a

violation of Code § 19.2-239 occurred, that defect went

solely to the circuit court’s lack of authority to exercise

territorial jurisdiction and is waived if not timely

raised. See Morrison, 239 Va. at 169-70, 387 S.E.2d at

755-56; Southern Sand and Gravel, 145 Va. at 326, 133 S.E.

at 814; Gordon v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 818, 822-23,

568 S.E.2d 452, 453-54 (2002). 9

Porter asked for the change of venue he duly received.

When offered the opportunity to move from Arlington, when

the trial began, Porter specifically declined to do so.

After the jury’s verdicts, Porter specifically requested

the transfer back to Norfolk, which the circuit court duly

9
We also note the language in Code § 17.1-503(B) that
“[n]o rule shall . . . preclude the judge before whom an
accused is arraigned in criminal cases from hearing all
aspects of the case on its merits, or to avoid or preclude
any judge in any case who has heard any part of the case on
its merits from hearing the case to its conclusion.” This
statutory language reflects a policy preference of the
General Assembly that the judge sitting when Porter’s case
commenced (in this case Judge Griffith), be the judge who
concludes trial of the case even if venue of the trial is

29
granted. Until raised by this Court, Porter never objected

to or questioned in any way the exercise of the circuit

court’s authority or any potential defects in that

authority by virtue of conducting proceedings in either

Arlington or Norfolk. Porter clearly failed to raise an

objection under Code § 19.2-244, which requires “questions

of venue to be raised before verdict.” Code § 19.2-244.

Porter received exactly what he requested in terms of a

different venue for his trial. He cannot take a different

position at this point without violating our rule

prohibiting approbation and reprobation. Cangiano v. LSH

Bldg. Co., 271 Va. 171, 181, 623 S.E.2d 889, 895 (2006) (“A

party may not approbate and reprobate by taking successive

positions in the course of litigation that are either

inconsistent with each other or mutually contradictory”);

see also Powell v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 107, 144, 590

S.E.2d 537, 560 (2004); Cohn v. Knowledge Connections,

Inc., 266 Va. 362, 367, 585 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2003); Smith

v. Settle, 254 Va. 348, 354, 492 S.E.2d 427, 431 (1997);

Leech v. Beasley, 203 Va. 955, 961-62, 128 S.E.2d 293, 297-

98 (1962).

Nonetheless, Porter contends the circuit court’s

judgment was void, thus requiring reversal and a new trial,

altered.

30
based on his reading of Code § 17.1-105 as a mandatory

limit on a circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 10

To support that position, Porter relies on Moore and

Gresham v. Ewell, 85 Va. (10 Hans.) 1, 6 S.E. 700 (1888).

Porter contends these cases establish precedent that a

judicial act is void, not voidable, when a lack of proper

designation of the trial judge occurs. We disagree.

We initially note some doubt that Code § 17.1-105

applies in the circumstance of a change of venue. 11 On its

10
Porter does not address and we do not reach the
constitutional authority of the Chief Justice of Virginia
to assign judges for the administration of justice. Va.
Const. art. VI, § 4. We do note that there is no
constitutional or statutory basis for the implication in
the dissent that a designation by the Chief Justice of
Virginia, or a circuit court judge, under Code § 17.1-105
could somehow convey subject matter jurisdiction, as is
amply illustrated by the lack of any citation to precedent
for that proposition in the dissenting opinions. Clearly,
subject matter jurisdiction comes only by constitutional or
statutory provision. Morrison, 239 Va. at 169, 387 S.E.2d
at 755.
11
Code § 17.1-105(A) and (B) state as follows:

A. If a judge of any court of record is
absent, sick or disabled or for any other reason
unable to hold any regular or special term of the
court, or any part thereof, or to perform or
discharge any official duty or function
authorized or required by law, a judge or retired
judge of any court of record may be obtained by
personal request of the disabled judge, or
another judge of the circuit to hold the court
for the whole or any part of such regular or
special term and to discharge during vacation
such duty or function, or, if the circumstances
require, to perform all the duties and exercise

31
face, Code § 17.1-105(A) appears directed at those

instances where illness, disability, or other similar

disqualifying circumstance necessitates a judge from

another circuit to sit in the affected jurisdiction. Code

§ 17.1-105(B) appears directed at conflicts of interest

which require recusal of all the judges in the circuit and

necessitates a judge from another jurisdiction to sit.

None of the circumstances indicated in Code § 17.1-105

occurred in this case. Furthermore, nothing on the face of

Code § 17.1-105 references a judicial designation when

there is a change of venue.

However, it is unnecessary for us to resolve whether

Code § 17.1-105 may have applied in this case and a

all the powers and jurisdiction as judges of such
circuit until the judge is again able to attend
his duties. The designation of such judge shall
be entered in the civil order book of the court,
and a copy thereof sent to the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice shall be
notified forthwith at the time any disabled judge
is able to return to his duties.
B. If all the judges of any court of record are
so situated in respect to any case, civil or
criminal, pending in their court as to render it
improper, in their opinion, for them to preside
at the trial, unless the cause or proceeding is
removed, as provided by law, they shall enter the
fact of record and the clerk of the court shall
at once certify the same to the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, who shall designate a judge of
some other court of record or a retired judge of
any such court to preside at the trial of such
case.

32
designation order should have been entered for Judge

Griffith to sit in Arlington. We can assume, without

deciding, that if Code § 17.1-105 was applicable when venue

changed in this case, a missing order of designation would

only have affected the circuit court judge’s authority to

act in the exercise of territorial jurisdiction. As noted

earlier, that issue is waived if not timely raised. Porter

made no objection to the circuit court judge’s purported

lack of authority under Code § 17.1-105 and he cannot now

attack the circuit court’s judgment on that basis. Rule

5:25.

Porter’s citations to Moore and Ewell are similarly

unpersuasive. In Moore, the defendant argued his prior

juvenile court proceedings were void because the statutory

directive to give notice to both his parents was absent

from the record. 259 Va. at 434, 527 S.E.2d at 407.

Porter contends that Code § 17.1-105 is like the juvenile

notice statute at issue in Moore, which the majority of the

court held was “mandatory in nature and limit[s] a court’s

rightful exercise of its subject matter jurisdiction.” 259

Va. at 438, 527 S.E.2d at 409. The Court in Moore

concluded the lower court “never acquired the authority to

exercise its jurisdiction.” Id. at 440, 527 S.E.2d at 411.

Even though the juvenile court’s subject matter

33
jurisdiction was not at issue, the defendant was permitted

to collaterally attack the underlying judgment because the

majority found it void, not voidable. The dissenting

opinion in Moore, foreshadowing our decision in Nelson v.

Warden, 262 Va. 276, 552 S.E.2d 73 (2001), noted that “the

majority incorrectly equates statutory provisions that are

‘mandatory’ with those that are prerequisites to a juvenile

court’s exercise of its subject matter jurisdiction. . . .

The mandatory nature of a requirement, standing alone, does

not always make that requirement jurisdictional.” 259 Va.

at 446, 527 S.E.2d at 414-15 (J. Kinser, dissenting).

However, Porter’s reliance on Moore is misplaced

because we specifically overruled that case in Nelson. The

resolution of Nelson reflects the frailty of Porter's

position because the defendant in Nelson lost on the same

statutory notice defect Moore was allowed to raise,

specifically because the view that the defect was an

unwaivable jurisdictional defect (a premise in Moore) was

overruled in Nelson. Thus the pertinent comparison is

between the defendant Baker in the seminal parental

notification decision in Commonwealth v. Baker, 258 Va. 1,

516 S.E.2d 219 (1999) (per curiam), affirming Baker v.

Commonwealth, 28 Va. App 306, 504 S.E.2d 394 (1998), who

made timely objection throughout the proceedings – making

34
the defects cognizable on appeal – and the defendant in

Nelson, who failed to timely raise the claim at trial.

Nelson overruled Moore on the point that the failure to

object was a waiver of the argument given the non-

jurisdictional nature of the failure to adhere to the

statutory requirement, thus vitiating Porter's reliance on

this theory.

In Nelson, we embraced the dissent in Moore and

acknowledged that the majority’s analysis in Moore “is

flawed” and stated:

After noting the Court’s emphasis on the
distinction between subject matter jurisdiction
and the authority to exercise that jurisdiction,
the Court’s next step should have been to
demonstrate the difference resulting from the
distinction. Yet, we made a distinction without
a difference for, with our very next step, we
elevated the failure of a court to comply with
the requirements for exercising its authority to
the same level of gravity as a lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

262 Va. at 281, 552 S.E.2d at 75. We then stated:

We indicated supra that we thought a different
outcome could have resulted in David Moore from
the distinction we drew between subject matter
jurisdiction and the authority to exercise that
jurisdiction. In our opinion, the different
outcome should have consisted of a finding that
the statutory requirement of notice to parents
was not jurisdictional but procedural in nature,
that a failure to notify parents could be waived
by a failure to object, and, correspondingly,
that a failure to comply with the requirement
rendered subsequent convictions voidable and not

35
void. To the extent David Moore conflicts with
these views, it is overruled.

262 Va. at 284-85, 552 S.E.2d at 77.

Porter contends the failure to follow Code § 17.1-105

and obtain a designation order for the conduct of his case

in Arlington and the return to Norfolk caused the circuit

court’s judgments to be void because the court lacked the

authority to exercise its otherwise valid subject matter

jurisdiction. As just illustrated, we specifically

rejected that argument in Nelson when we overruled Moore.

Thus, the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction

over Porter’s trial which was never affected by the

transfer of venue and its judgments could not be void on

that basis. If a defect in the circuit court’s exercise of

its authority occurred, it was subject to waiver, and that

is what happened in the case at bar. While the circuit

court’s judgment may have been subject to a timely

objection, and thus have been a voidable judgment, Porter’s

failure to object settles the issue.

Porter’s citation to Ewell is similarly unavailing. 12

Ewell involved a judgment our predecessors determined to be

12
At the time of the Ewell decision, the Supreme Court
of Appeals consisted of only five members. Va. Const. art.
VI, § 2 (1870). A bare quorum of the Court, three members,
id., sat in the Ewell case so the majority opinion was
rendered by a plurality of only two members of the Court.

36
“null and void” because a judge from another jurisdiction

rendered that judgment without a proper designation to

conduct court in the jurisdiction where trial occurred. 85

Va. at 2, 6 S.E. at 701. However, as pointed out by the

dissent in Ewell, the majority’s underlying analysis

suffers from the same fatal flaws that caused us to

overrule Moore. See 85 Va. at 5-8, 6 S.E. at 701-03

(Lewis, C.J., dissenting).

Ewell involved a collateral attack upon a circuit

court judgment which had been rendered in Lancaster County

by a visiting judge for whom no order of designation had

been entered as required by a statutory predecessor to Code

§ 17.1-105. The plurality in Ewell held the visiting judge

entering the order “exceeded his jurisdiction in acting as

a judge without the authority of the law, and the said

judgment is without authority, and null and void.” 85 Va.

at 3, 6 S.E. at 701.

In an analysis mirroring the majority in Nelson and

the dissent in Moore, the dissent in Ewell correctly

stated:

The judgment is collaterally assailed, and being
a judgment rendered by a court of general
jurisdiction, acting within the scope of its
powers, and proceeding according to the course of
the common law, and held at the time by one of
the county judges of the state, it must, I think,
be held to be valid. For no principle is better

37
established than that a judgment of such a court,
when collaterally drawn in question, is not
affected by errors or irregularities which do not
show a want of jurisdiction, or an excess of
jurisdiction.

. . . .

In short, my opinion is, that the provisions
of the statute above referred to are directory
merely, and that the county court having
undisputed jurisdiction of the case in which the
judgment was rendered, a failure to comply with
the requirements of the statute could not affect
the validity of the judgment in this collateral
proceeding. The writ of prohibition cannot be
permitted in a case like this to take the place
of a writ of error or of an appeal, though they
are in some cases concurrent remedies.

85 Va. at 5-7, 6 S.E. at 701-02 (Lewis, C.J., dissenting).

The plurality in Ewell was incorrect in construing the

trial court’s judgment as void, instead of voidable, and

permitting a collateral attack by virtue of a defect in the

exercise of the court’s authority under its territorial

jurisdiction for the same reason as the majority erred in

Moore. The trial courts in Ewell and Moore had subject

matter jurisdiction over the respective cases and the

resulting judgments could not therefore be void and subject

to collateral attack in a later proceeding based on a

defect other than subject matter jurisdiction. Ewell and

Moore erroneously elevated a defect in something other than

subject matter jurisdiction to the same level of

consequence. The failure of the appellant in Ewell to

38
timely object to the court’s exercise of its jurisdiction

should have ended that case and, as we noted in Nelson, the

same should have occurred in Moore as well. After Nelson,

Ewell can have no validity and to the extent it conflicts

with our opinion in Nelson, it is overruled. 13

Whatever defects may have occurred with respect to the

transfer of Porter’s case to Arlington, and in returning to

Norfolk, would only have affected the circuit court’s

exercise of its territorial jurisdiction and could only

13
In overruling Ewell, we note that case has only been
cited six times by this Court since it was decided in 1888.
See Combs v. Commonwealth, 90 Va. 88, 90, 17 S.E. 881, 881
(1893); Prison Ass’n of Virginia v. Ashby, 93 Va. 667, 671,
25 S.E. 893, 894 (1896) (citing Ewell for the proposition
that “whatever jurisdiction this court exercises must be by
virtue of some statute enacted in conformity to the
Constitution”); Price v. Smith, 93 Va. 14, 15, 24 S.E. 474,
474 (1896) (stating that a court’s jurisdiction “must be by
virtue of statutory authority made in pursuance of the
Constitution”); Smith v. White, 107 Va. 616, 619, 59 S.E.
480, 481 (1907); Shelton v. Sydnor, 126 Va. 625, 632, 102
S.E. 83, 86 (1920) (quoting from the dissenting opinion in
Ewell); Akers v. Commonwealth, 155 Va. 1046, 1051, 156 S.E.
763, 765 (1930) (quoting from the dissenting opinion).
Other than supporting the concept that a court’s
jurisdiction must derive from statutory authority made in
pursuance of the Constitution, Ewell was otherwise
distinguished or cited by reference to its dissenting
opinion, which perhaps represents why we have never
specifically relied upon it. In that context, Ewell has no
application for purposes of stare decisis. Since the legal
basis of Ewell is plainly wrong under Nelson, it is
appropriate that Ewell be overruled. See Harmon v. Sadjadi,
273 Va. 184, 197, 639 S.E.2d 294, 301 (2007) (“[o]ur strong
adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis does not . . .
compel us to perpetuate what we believe to be an incorrect
application of the law”) (citation omitted).

39
have rendered the resulting judgments voidable if subject

to a proper and timely objection. Having failed to raise

any objections, Porter has waived any such jurisdictional

defects and the judgment of the circuit court is therefore

unaffected. Additionally, as we have already stated, we

will not permit Porter to approbate and reprobate in the

absence of a valid challenge to subject matter

jurisdiction.

C. METHODS OF EXECUTION

In his initial assignment of error, Porter contends

that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to

declare the Commonwealth’s lethal injection and

electrocution methods for execution unconstitutional as

being in violation of the prohibition against cruel and

unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the

Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 9

of the Constitution of Virginia. Porter asserts that

lethal injection, as it is administered in Virginia, is

unconstitutional based upon the purportedly inadequate

training of the staff administering the lethal injection,

as well as the “deficiencies inherent in the lethal

injection drugs themselves.” Porter further asserts that

electrocution “violates contemporary standards of decency

under the Eighth Amendment.” We reject Porter’s arguments

40
because our clear precedent recognizes that electrocution

is constitutionally permitted and the recent decision of

the United States Supreme Court in Baze v. Rees, ___ U.S.

___, 128 S.Ct. 1520 (2008), does not undermine the

constitutionality of lethal injection in Virginia.

This Court has previously held that execution by

electrocution does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Bell v.

Commonwealth, 264 Va. 172, 202, 563 S.E.2d 695, 715 (2002),

cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1123 (2003); Martin v. Commonwealth,

221 Va. 436, 439, 271 S.E.2d 123, 125 (1980). We find no

reason to depart from our previous decisions.

Pursuant to Code § 53.1-234, a defendant convicted of

capital murder in Virginia has the right to elect whether

to be executed by electrocution or lethal injection. “When

a condemned prisoner has a choice of method of execution,

the inmate may not choose a method and then complain of its

unconstitutionality, particularly when the

constitutionality of the alternative method has been

established.” Orbe v. Johnson, 267 Va. 568, 570, 601

S.E.2d 543, 546, cert. denied, 541 U.S. 970 (2004). Our

conclusion in Bell is similarly applicable in this case:

Bell has the right to choose whether his
execution will be by lethal injection or by
electrocution. Because Bell has that choice and

41
we have already ruled that execution by
electrocution is permissible under the Eighth
Amendment, it would be an unnecessary
adjudication of a constitutional issue to decide
whether lethal injection violates the Eighth
Amendment. See Bissell v. Commonwealth, 199 Va.
397, 400, 100 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1957). We decline to
do so, and likewise cannot say that the circuit
court erred in denying Bell's motion for an
evidentiary hearing to decide the
constitutionality of lethal injection as a method
of execution. Thus, we find no error in the
court's denial of Bell's motion.

264 Va. at 203, 563 S.E.2d at 715-16.

Moreover, the Supreme Court in Baze rejected a

challenge to Kentucky’s lethal injection procedure similar

to that raised by Porter. The Supreme Court held that a

constitutional challenge fails unless “the condemned

prisoner establishes that the State's lethal injection

protocol creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain. He

must show that the risk is substantial when compared to the

known and available alternatives. A State with a lethal

injection protocol substantially similar to the protocol we

uphold today would not create a risk that meets this

standard.” Baze, ___ U.S. at ___, 128 S.Ct. at 1537.

Porter concedes that the Virginia protocol is “materially

similar” to the Kentucky protocol.

Accordingly, we hold the circuit court did not err in

denying Porter’s motion regarding the methods of execution.

42
D. APPLICABILITY OF THE VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS ACT

In a related assignment of error, Porter asserts that

the circuit court erred by denying his motion to suspend

all executions until regulations providing the necessary

procedures to carry out Virginia’s death penalty statutes

are properly promulgated. Porter maintains that the

particular procedures used for execution in Virginia are

unlawful because the Department of Corrections has failed

to comply with certain provisions of the Virginia

Administrative Process Act (“APA”), Code §§ 2.2-4000 et

seq. Porter’s assertions are without merit.

Agency action by the Virginia Department of

Corrections concerning inmates of prisons does not fall

within the scope of the APA. Though the APA exempts

certain Virginia agencies from its mandates specifically by

name, it also creates exemptions for agency action by

subject matter as well. Accordingly, the Act exempts

actions of agencies relating to “[i]nmates of prisons or

other such facilities or parolees therefrom.” Code § 2.2-

4002(B)(9). In this context, the Virginia Department of

Corrections is an agency whose sole purpose is related to

inmates of prisons. It is thus exempt from the strictures

of the APA. We therefore hold that the circuit court did

43
not err in rejecting Porter’s motion to invalidate the

execution procedures under the APA.

E. ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE REGARDING PORTER’S
STATUS AS A FELON

In his third assignment of error, Porter contends that

the circuit court erred by admitting prejudicial evidence

of his prior felony conviction during the Commonwealth’s

case-in-chief. During trial, the Commonwealth asserted

that Porter’s status as a convicted felon was admissible as

evidence of Porter’s possible motive for killing Officer

Reaves. The Commonwealth maintained that Porter knew that

it was illegal for him to carry a gun and, thus, shot the

officer in order to escape arrest for possession of a

firearm.

The Commonwealth similarly asserted that Porter’s

prior conviction proved an element of the offense charged

under Code § 18.2-31(6). This was so, the Commonwealth

contended, because Porter shot Officer Reaves “for the

purpose of interfering with the performance of his official

duties” as a law enforcement officer: to stop Officer

Reaves from arresting him for possessing a gun while a

convicted felon.

The circuit court allowed the Commonwealth to

introduce evidence that Porter had previously been

44
convicted of a violent felony. The court reasoned that

this evidence tended to prove Porter’s motive for the

killing as well as “an element of the offense; that is, the

murder was to interfere with the performance of a law

enforcement officer’s duties.”

“The responsibility for balancing the competing

considerations of probative value and prejudice rests in

the sound discretion of the trial court. The exercise of

that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal in the

absence of a clear abuse.” Spencer v. Commonwealth, 240

Va. 78, 90, 393 S.E.2d 609, 617 (1990).

In Guill v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 134, 138, 495 S.E.2d

489, 491 (1998), this Court held that, “[e]vidence of

‘other crimes’ is relevant and admissible if it tends to

prove any element of the offense charged. Thus, evidence

of other crimes is allowed when it tends to prove motive,

intent, or knowledge of the defendant.” (Internal citation

omitted). In the case at bar, Porter admitted that he knew

when he shot Officer Reaves that, as a previously convicted

felon, he was subject to a five-year mandatory prison

sentence if found in possession of a firearm. Such

evidence is highly probative both of Porter’s possible

motivation for shooting Officer Reaves and to prove an

essential element of the offense charged.

45
Furthermore, in a deliberate effort to lessen any

inherent prejudice to Porter, the Commonwealth did not

enter Porter’s certified record of conviction or felony

sentencing order for armed robbery, nor did the

Commonwealth specifically detail the extent of Porter’s

other past bad acts. Rather, the jury was only informed

that Porter was a “violent felon” as defined by Code

§ 18.2-308.2, that he was consequently prohibited by law

from possessing a firearm, and that he would face a

mandatory five-year prison sentence if found with a firearm

in his possession. In this context, the probative value of

this evidence outweighed any incidental prejudice to

Porter. See Scates v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 757, 761, 553

S.E.2d 756, 759 (2001). Accordingly, we hold that the

circuit court did not abuse its discretion by allowing this

evidence for the limited purpose of proving motive and an

essential element of the crime of which Porter was charged

under Code § 18.2-31(6). Bell v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. at

198-99, 563 S.E.2d at 713.

F. SECOND-DEGREE MURDER INSTRUCTION

Porter also assigns as error the circuit court’s

refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense

of second-degree murder. Porter asserts that the evidence

“that he shot Officer Reaves three times in rapid-fire

46
succession in an impulsive, unplanned and spontaneous surge

of panic after the officer unexpectedly grabbed [his] arm,

pointed his service revolver at him, and appeared to be

about to kill him” was “squarely presented through his own

testimony and supported by several witnesses.” Porter

contends the second-degree murder instruction was

appropriate because “[h]e insisted throughout his testimony

that he did not intend to kill Officer Reaves,” and “the

jury could fairly have entertained a reasonable doubt as to

. . . whether his malicious killing of Officer Reaves was

preceded by premeditation and deliberation.”

The Commonwealth responds that Porter failed to offer

more than a “scintilla of evidence” to support the second-

degree murder instruction. Further, the Commonwealth

insists that the circuit court did not err in refusing the

instruction because “Porter admitted taking aim at Officer

Reaves’[] head, standing within an arm’s length, intending

to shoot him and to putting a bullet into his head. After

Officer Reaves fell onto the ground, Porter leaned over the

officer and deliberately fired twice more.”

The principles governing our review of a circuit

court’s refusal of a lesser included offense instruction

regarding murder are well-settled.

47
We have long recognized that evidence
showing a murder “to have been deliberate,
premeditated and wilful could be so clear and
uncontroverted that a trial court could properly
refuse to instruct on the lesser included
offenses.” Painter [v. Commonwealth, 210 Va.
360, 366, 171 S.E.2d 166, 171 (1969)]. It
follows, therefore, that a criminal defendant “is
not entitled to a lesser degree instruction
solely because the case is one of murder.” Clark
v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 201, 209, 257 S.E.2d
784, 789 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1049
(1980).

A second[-]degree murder instruction is only
appropriate where it is supported by evidence.
Justus v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 667, 678, 283
S.E.2d 905, 911 (1981), cert. denied, 445 U.S.
983 (1982); Painter, 210 Va. at 367, 171 S.E.2d
at 171. Moreover, the evidence asserted in
support of such an instruction “must amount to
more than a scintilla.” Justus, 222 Va. at 678,
283 S.E.2d at 911; Hatcher v. Commonwealth, 218
Va. 811, 814, 241 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1978).

Buchanan v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 389, 409, 384 S.E.2d 757,

769 (1989).

“Because the issue on appeal deals with the circuit

court’s refusal of the lesser-included offense instruction

. . . , and even though the Commonwealth prevailed at

trial, we must view the evidence on this issue in the light

most favorable to the defendant, the proponent of the

instruction.” Commonwealth v. Leal, 265 Va. 142, 145, 574

S.E.2d 285, 287 (2003). Applying the appropriate standard

of review and viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to Porter, we hold that the circuit court did not

48
err in refusing to offer the second-degree murder

instruction.

Porter failed to offer evidence “in support of a

particular instruction [that] ‘must amount to more than a

scintilla.’ ” Schlimmer v. Poverty Hunt Club, 268 Va. 74,

78, 597 S.E.2d 43, 45 (2004) (quoting Justus v.

Commonwealth, 222 Va. 667, 678, 283 S.E.2d 905, 911

(1981)). Further, we hold the evidence in this case of

Porter’s “deliberate, premeditated and wilful” murder of

Officer Reaves was “ ‘so clear and uncontroverted that a

trial court could properly refuse to instruct on the lesser

included offenses.’ ” Buchanan, 238 Va. at 409, 384 S.E.2d

at 769 (citation omitted).

Porter’s only evidence that he murdered Officer Reaves

without premeditation is his own testimony that he acted

because he “was scared” that Officer Reaves “was going to

kill [him].” Porter contends that testimony along with

other evidence the shots were fired “rapidly” and that it

would have been hard for him to remove Officer Reaves’

pistol from its holster, are more than a scintilla of

evidence negating premeditation. We disagree.

Other than Porter’s claim that Officer Reaves pulled

his gun first, there is no record evidence supporting that

theory and thereby a second-degree murder instruction for

49
lack of premeditation. Conversely, substantial and

uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that, after Porter

shot Officer Reaves the first time and Officer Reaves fell

to the ground, Porter shot Officer Reaves twice more. This

description of the shooting does not correspond with

Porter’s contention that he “was scared” but further

establishes his deliberation and premeditation, which is

“an intent to kill that needs to exist only for a moment.”

Coles v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 585, 590, 621 S.E.2d 109,

112 (2005) (quoting Green v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 81, 104,

580 S.E.2d 834, 847 (2003)).

Moreover, Porter’s own testimony proves his act of

shooting Officer Reaves was one of premeditation and

deliberation as this exchange during cross-examination

reflects:

Q. You meant to hit Stanley Reaves with a
bullet, didn’t you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. And you took aim – therefore,
you took aim at him, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You took aim at a part of his body, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the part of his body that you took aim
at and then before pulling the trigger from less

50
than six inches away was directly into his
forehead, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

. . . .

Q. And you agree that you knew you were aiming
at his head, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Thus, “[t]he evidence to which [Porter] points falls far

short of proving provocation, anger, passion, or any other

fact that might serve to convince a jury that [Porter]

acted without premeditation.” Buchanan, 238 Va. at 412,

384 S.E.2d at 771.

Not only does Porter’s recited evidence fail to

“amount to more than a scintilla” in support of a second-

degree murder instruction, but this is a case where the

evidence of premeditation is “ ‘so clear and uncontroverted

that a trial court could properly refuse to instruct on the

lesser included offenses.’ ” Buchanan, 238 Va. at 409, 384

S.E.2d at 769 (citation omitted). Accordingly, we hold

that the circuit court did not err in refusing Porter’s

request for a second-degree murder instruction.

G. PRISON RISK ASSESSMENT EXPERT

After the circuit court had appointed a mental health

expert and a neuropsychological expert to assist in

Porter’s defense, Porter filed the Prison Expert Motion

51
requesting that Dr. Mark D. Cunningham be appointed “as an

expert on the assessment of the risk of violence by prison

inmates and, in particular, the risk of future

dangerousness posed by the defendant if incarcerated in a

Virginia penitentiary for life.” The circuit court denied

the motion and Porter assigns error to that ruling because

it did not allow him “to rebut the Commonwealth’s

allegation that the defendant constitutes a continuing

threat to society, and also to establish, as a mitigating

factor, that the likelihood of further serious violence by

the defendant was low.”

Our decision in Husske v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 203,

476 S.E.2d 920 (1996), established the basis upon which a

circuit court reviews the request of an indigent defendant

for the appointment of an expert witness to assist in his

defense. We described and applied the Husske analysis in

Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 268 Va. 161, 597 S.E.2d 197 (2004)

which guides our review in the case at bar.

In Husske v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 203, 476
S.E.2d 920 (1996), this Court noted that an
indigent defendant is not constitutionally
entitled, at the state’s expense, to all the
experts that a non-indigent defendant might
afford. Id. at 211, 476 S.E.2d at 925. All that
is required is that an indigent defendant have “
‘an adequate opportunity to present [his] claims
fairly within the adversary system.’ ” Id.
(quoting Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 612
(1974)).

52
In Husske we held that

an indigent defendant who seeks the
appointment of an expert witness, at
the Commonwealth's expense, must
demonstrate that the subject which
necessitates the assistance of the
expert is “likely to be a significant
factor in his defense,” and that he
will be prejudiced by the lack of
expert assistance.

Id. at 211-12, 476 S.E.2d at 925 (citation
omitted). In that context, we specified that a
defendant seeking the assistance of an expert
witness “must show a particularized need” for
that assistance. Id.

It is the defendant’s burden to demonstrate
this “particularized need” by establishing that
an expert’s services would materially assist him
in preparing his defense and that the lack of
such assistance would result in a fundamentally
unfair trial. Id.; accord Green v. Commonwealth,
266 Va. 81, 92, 580 S.E.2d 834, 840 (2003). We
made clear in Husske and subsequent cases that
“mere hope or suspicion that favorable evidence
is available is not enough to require that such
help be provided.” 252 Va. at 212, 476 S.E.2d at
925 (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether
a defendant has made the required showing of
particularized need is a determination that lies
within the sound discretion of the trial court.

268 Va. at 165, 597 S.E.2d at 199.

Porter attached several documents to the Prison Expert

Motion including his curriculum vitae and a “Declaration”

which had been filed in a separate capital murder case,

Gray v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 290, 645 S.E.2d 448 (2007),

cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1111 (2008) (the

53
“Gray Declaration”). However, at no place in the Prison

Expert Motion does Porter represent that Dr. Cunningham’s

evidence as to him would be of the same nature as in the

Gray Declaration.

Porter acknowledges that he “must show a

particularized need” under Husske. In his Prison Expert

Motion, however, Porter primarily focused on criticizing

prior decisions of this Court regarding prison risk

assessment experts and lauding the virtues of various

statistical modes of analysis to project rates of prison

inmate violence. Porter cited a number of studies about

statistical analysis of the rates of prison inmate violence

at various times and settings and upon which Dr.

Cunningham’s evidence would be based. Porter represented

that “context and statistical and actuarial data . . . are

indispensable to the determination of risk.” Porter argued

that the statistical evidence of conditions during life

imprisonment in the penitentiary “must be admissible to

rebut the Commonwealth’s assertion that the defendant will

probably commit criminal acts of violence in the future.”

Porter also contended that in examining the aggravating

factor of future dangerousness under Code § 19.2-264.4(C)

“the only ‘society’ to which the defendant can ever pose a

‘continuing serious threat’ is prison society.” “[T]he

54
future dangerousness inquiry is concerned only with that

violence that is both ‘criminal’ and ‘serious’ and occurs

behind prison walls during the natural life of the capital

life inmate.”

Porter indicated in the Prison Expert Motion that our

prior decisions in Burns v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 307, 541

S.E.2d 872, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1043 (2001), and Lovitt

v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 497, 537 S.E.2d 866 (2000), cert.

denied, 534 U.S. 815 (2001), were in error. Among other

reasons, Porter contended that we incorrectly interpreted

the term “society” as used in Code § 19.2-264.2 and 19.2-

264.4(C). Porter argued “it is manifestly impossible for a

defendant adequately to explain why he is not a continuing

serious threat to society without introducing evidence of

the conditions of prison incarceration, including prison

security and the actual rates of serious criminal violence

in prison.”

The Commonwealth responded to Porter’s Expert Motion

by citing our prior decisions in Burns, Cherrix v.

Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292, 513 S.E.2d 642, cert. denied,

528 U.S. 873 (1999), Juniper, and Walker v. Commonwealth,

258 Va. 54, 515 S.E.2d 565 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S.

1125 (2000). The Commonwealth noted, consonant with that

precedent, that “what a person may expect in the penal

55
system is not relevant mitigation evidence,” and that

Porter’s proffer failed to tender evidence that “concern[s]

the history or experience of the defendant” (citing

Cherrix, 257 Va. at 310, 513 S.E.2d at 653).

After hearing oral argument, the circuit court denied

the motion and opined from the bench that Dr. Cunningham’s

proffered evidence “does not concern the history or

experience of the defendant. . . . I have to venture to

conclude an expert in his field could take any general

claims he might make with respect to the prison framework

and apply it to an individual. That doesn’t make it

particular.” Further, the circuit court explained that

because the Commonwealth was “simply going to be going into

the defendant’s personal history and acts” and offering

nothing as to prison life, Dr. Cunningham was not a proper

rebuttal witness.

On appeal, Porter contends that, in the circuit court,

he made it “clear that Dr. Cunningham would provide an

individualized assessment of the risk posed by Porter.”

Porter argues he could not rebut the Commonwealth’s

evidence of future dangerousness based on his prior

criminal record and the facts of the crime without Dr.

Cunningham’s testimony. He contends that Dr. Cunningham’s

proffered evidence should have been admissible under

56
Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994) and the

failure to afford him that expert “prejudiced” Porter in

two ways:

First, it rendered unreliable the jury’s finding
in favor of the Commonwealth on the future threat
predicate – a finding that provided the sole
aggravating factor supporting the death penalty.
And second, even if Dr. Cunningham’s rebuttal
testimony had not altogether prevented a
dangerousness finding by the sentencing jury, it
would at least have substantially reduced the
weight that the jury would have accorded to the
existence of that factor when making its ultimate
sentencing decision.

Porter thus concludes he met the required Husske showing of

a “particularized need” and the circuit court’s failure to

appoint Dr. Cunningham as his expert requires that the

court’s judgment be reversed.

To resolve the issue before us, we begin with a review

of the pertinent statutes, Code § 19.2-264.2 and Code

§ 19.2-264.4(C), and our decisions in which we considered

prison-setting evidence a defendant sought to offer at a

capital murder sentencing. We will then review Porter’s

actual proffer in this case and apply that precedent in

evaluating whether the circuit court abused its discretion

in denying the Prison Expert Motion.

Code § 19.2-264.2 provides in pertinent part as

follows:

57
In assessing the penalty of any person convicted
of an offense for which the death penalty may be
imposed, a sentence of death shall not be imposed
unless the court or jury shall (1) after
consideration of the past criminal record of
convictions of the defendant, find that there is
a probability that the defendant would commit
criminal acts of violence that would constitute a
continuing serious threat to society.

(Emphasis added.) Code § 19.2-264.4(C) similarly provides

that the penalty of death shall not be imposed unless the

Commonwealth proves

beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a
probability based upon evidence of the prior
history of the defendant or of the circumstances
surrounding the commission of the offense of
which he is accused that he would commit criminal
acts of violence that would constitute a
continuing serious threat to society.

(Emphasis added.)

The plain directive of these statutes is that the

determination of future dangerousness is focused on the

defendant’s “past criminal record,” “prior history” and

“the circumstances surrounding the commission of the

offense.” These standards defining the future

dangerousness aggravating factor are the basis of our

earlier decisions which considered motions for appointment

of prison risk experts or the proffer of prison risk

evidence.

In Cherrix, the defendant “sought to introduce”

evidence which “involved the general nature of prison life”

58
as mitigating evidence of his future dangerousness. 257

Va. at 309, 513 S.E.2d at 653. We noted that

[a]lthough the United States Constitution
guarantees the defendant in a capital case a
right to present mitigating evidence to the
sentencing authority, it does not limit “the
traditional authority of a court to exclude, as
irrelevant, evidence not bearing on the
defendant’s character, prior record, or the
circumstances of his offense.”

Id. (quoting Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 605 n.12

(1978)). We held that the circuit court properly excluded

Cherrix’ prison setting evidence because “none of this

evidence concerns the history or experience of the

defendant. We agree with the conclusion of the trial court

that what a person may expect in the penal system is not

relevant mitigation evidence.” Id. at 310, 513 S.E.2d at

653. We also noted that “none of the evidence proffered at

trial addressed Cherrix’s ability to conform or his

experience in conforming to prison life.” Id. at 310 n.4,

513 S.E.2d at 653 n.4 (internal quotation marks omitted).

We next addressed the issue in Lovitt, when the

defendant argued that under Code § 19.2-264.2 “the only

society that should be considered in this case for purposes

of ‘future dangerousness’ is prison society.” 260 Va. at

516, 537 S.E.2d at 878. We rejected this argument because

“[t]he statute does not limit this consideration to ‘prison

59
society’ when a defendant is ineligible for parole, and we

decline Lovitt’s effective request that we rewrite the

statute to restrict its scope.” Id. at 517, 537 S.E.2d at

879.

In Burns, the defendant “attempted to introduce

evidence concerning the conditions [in prison] in rebuttal

to the Commonwealth’s evidence of Burns’ future

dangerousness.” 261 Va. at 338, 541 S.E.2d at 892. Burns

acknowledged that we had rejected a similar claim in

Cherrix as improper mitigating evidence, but he proffered

his evidence “in rebuttal to the Commonwealth’s evidence of

Burns’ future dangerousness.” Id. The Commonwealth’s

evidence “concerning Burns’ future dangerousness consisted

of his prior criminal record and unadjudicated criminal

acts.” Id. at 339, 541 S.E.2d at 893. Burns contended he

should be allowed to rebut that evidence with witnesses

echoing the rejected evidence in Lovitt, and similar to

Porter’s proffer, “that his opportunities to commit

criminal acts of violence in the future would be severely

limited in a maximum security prison.” Id. We held the

circuit court did not err in rejecting the proffered

evidence because “Burns’ evidence was not in rebuttal to

any evidence concerning prison life” from the Commonwealth.

Id.

60
We explained that our decision concerning the risks

and consequences of prison life rested on the specific

language of the controlling statutes, §§ 19.2-264.2 and

19.2-264.4(C):

[T]he relevant inquiry is not whether Burns could
commit criminal acts of violence in the future
but whether he would. Indeed, Code §§ 19.2-264.2
and -264.4(C) use the phrase “would commit
criminal acts of violence.” Accordingly, the
focus must be on the particular facts of Burns’
history and background, and the circumstances of
his offense. In other words, a determination of
future dangerousness revolves around an
individual defendant and a specific crime.
Evidence regarding the general nature of prison
life in a maximum security facility is not
relevant to that inquiry, even when offered in
rebuttal to evidence of future dangerousness.

261 Va. at 339-40, 541 S.E.2d at 893. We also analyzed

Burns’ claims based on his argument that the decisions of

the United States Supreme Court in Simmons and Skipper v.

South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986), entitled him to present

this evidence to the fact-finder. We found neither case

applicable because the evidence of future prison conduct

was not particularized and individualized to the defendant

and guided by the statutory requirements of his criminal

history and background. “Unlike the evidence proffered by

Burns, the evidence in Skipper was peculiar to that

defendant’s history and background.” Id. at 340, 541

S.E.2d at 894.

61
We again addressed this general issue in Bell, when

the defendant requested the appointment of an expert

to assess his likelihood of being a future danger
in prison, and to testify concerning the
correctional systems used in a maximum security
prison to manage inmates and prevent acts of
violence.

. . . .

Bell asserts that evidence concerning the prison
conditions in which he would serve a life
sentence is relevant not only in mitigation and
in rebuttal to the Commonwealth’s evidence of
future dangerousness, but also to his “future
adaptability” to prison life.

264 Va. at 199-200, 563 S.E.2d at 713. Echoing Porter’s

claims in the case at bar, Bell contended that our

decisions in Cherrix and Burns were erroneous and cited the

United States Supreme Court decisions in Simmons, Skipper

and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) to support his

argument. Bell, 264 Va. at 199, 563 S.E.2d at 713.

As in Burns, we noted that the evidence in Skipper and

Williams was individualized specifically to those

defendants’ prior acts while incarcerated and were not

statistical projections of future behavior. We then noted

that in Cherrix and Burns,

the “common thread” in these cases is that
evidence peculiar to a defendant’s character,
history and background is relevant to the future
dangerousness inquiry and should not be excluded
from a jury’s consideration. This includes
evidence relating to a defendant’s current

62
adjustment to the conditions of
confinement. . . . But, as we had already stated,
“[e]vidence regarding the general nature of
prison life in a maximum security facility is not
relevant to that inquiry, even when offered in
rebuttal to evidence of future dangerousness.”

Id. at 201, 563 S.E.2d at 714 (citing Burns, 261 Va. at

340, 541 S.E.2d at 893). We then held that the circuit

court had not abused its discretion in denying the

appointment of Bell’s prison risk expert because he had not

met the requirements of Husske.

While we do not dispute that Bell’s “future
adaptability” in terms of his disposition to
adjust to prison life is relevant to the future
dangerousness inquiry, Bell acknowledged on brief
that the individual that he sought to have
appointed has been qualified previously as an
expert in prison operations and classification.
The testimony that Bell sought to introduce
through the expert concerned the conditions of
prison life and the kind of security features
utilized in a maximum security facility. That is
the same kind of evidence that we have previously
rejected as not relevant to the future
dangerousness inquiry. See Burns, 261 Va. at 340,
541 S.E.2d at 893; Cherrix, 257 Va. at 310, 513
S.E.2d at 653. Nor is such general evidence, not
specific to Bell, relevant to his “future
adaptability” or as a foundation for an expert
opinion on that issue. Thus, we conclude that the
circuit court did not err in denying Bell’s
motion. Bell failed to show a “particularized
need” for this expert. Lenz v. Commonwealth, 261
Va. 451, 462, 544 S.E.2d 299, 305, cert. denied,
534 U.S. 1003 (2001). In light of the
inadmissibility of the evidence that Bell sought
to introduce through the expert, he also failed
to establish how he would be prejudiced by the
lack of the expert's assistance. See id.

264 Va. at 201, 563 S.E.2d at 714-15.

63
Lastly, we addressed this issue in Juniper, when the

indigent defendant sought the appointment of a psychologist

to make a “risk assessment for future dangerousness”

showing that such risk “was different in a prison setting

from that in an open community.” 271 Va. at 424, 626

S.E.2d at 422. For the reasons previously stated in

Cherrix, Burns and Bell, we determined that the circuit

court properly exercised its discretion in denying

appointment of the proposed expert because “what a person

may expect in the penal system is not relevant mitigation

evidence.” Id. at 425, 626 S.E.2d at 423 (quoting Cherrix,

257 Va. 310, 513 S.E.2d at 653).

Citing Burns, we re-emphasized that “the focus must be

on the particular facts of [the defendant’s] history and

background, and the circumstances of his offense. In other

words, a determination of future dangerousness revolves

around an individual defendant and a specific crime.” Id.

at 426, 626 S.E.2d at 423 (quoting Burns, 261 Va. at 339-

40, 541 S.E.2d 893-94). We went on to state that

evidence relating to a prison environment must
connect the specific characteristics of the
particular defendant to his future adaptability
in that environment in order to be heard by the
jury. It must be “evidence peculiar to a
defendant's character, history and background” in
order to be “relevant to the future dangerousness
inquiry . . . .”

64
Id. at 426, 626 S.E.2d at 424 (quoting Bell, 264 Va. at

201, 563 S.E.2d at 714). We concluded that the proffer of

testimony in Juniper did not meet these tests because none

of it tied the

proposed opinion testimony on future
dangerousness in a prison environment to
Juniper’s “history and background, and the
circumstances of his offense,” Burns, 261 Va. at
340, 541 S.E.2d at 893, to Juniper’s “character,
history and background” or was “specific to
[Juniper], relevant to his ‘future
adaptability.’ ” Bell, 264 Va. at 201, 563
S.E.2d at 714.

Id. at 427, 626 S.E.2d at 424.

With the statutory future dangerousness requirements

and our precedent firmly in mind, we now turn to the actual

proffer of Dr. Cunningham’s proposed evidence so as to

measure that proffer against those factors. Porter’s

Prison Expert Motion for appointment of Dr. Cunningham is

notable for an essential, but missing, element. At no

place in the motion does he proffer that Dr. Cunningham’s

statistical analysis of a projected prison environment will

“focus . . . on the particular facts of [his] history and

background, and the circumstances of his offense.” Burns,

261 Va. at 340, 541 S.E.2d at 893; see Code §§ 19.2-264.2

and Code § 19.2-264.4(C). Nothing in Porter’s motion is a

proffer of an “individualized” or “particularized” analysis

of Porter’s “prior criminal record,” “prior history”, his

65
prior or current incarceration, or the circumstances of the

crime for which he had been convicted. See id., Juniper,

271 Va. at 427, 626 S.E.2d at 424, Bell, 264 Va. at 201,

563 S.E.2d at 714, Burns, 261 Va. at 339-40, 541 S.E.2d at

893.

Porter’s proffer in the motion was that Dr. Cunningham

would testify as to a statistical projection of how prison

restrictions could control an inmate (situated similarly to

what he would project Porter to face) in a likely prison

setting. Nothing in this proffer relates to the essential

statutory elements in Code §§ 19.2-264.2 and 19.2-264.4

that focus the future dangerousness inquiry on the

defendant’s prior history, prior criminal record and/or the

circumstances of the offense. Additionally, nothing in

Porter’s proffer analyzes our application of this statutory

directive to the “defendant’s character, history and

background.” Not only is the Prison Expert Motion devoid

of any reference that the proffered evidence would be

“individualized” or “particularized” to Porter, his post

conviction Motion for a New Trial was similarly silent.

Porter’s proffered evidence is not substantially

different from the type we rejected in Burns and Bell. As

in Burns, the Commonwealth in this case neither proposed

nor introduced any evidence concerning Porter’s prospective

66
life in prison, but limited its evidence on the future

dangerousness aggravating factor to the statutory

requirements represented by Porter’s “prior criminal record

and unadjudicated criminal acts. Thus [Porter’s] evidence

was not in rebuttal to any evidence concerning prison

life.” 261 Va. at 339, 541 S.E.2d at 893.

Strikingly similar to Porter’s argument in the case at

bar was the defendant’s argument in Bell, when the

defendant also requested that an expert be appointed “to

assess his likelihood of being a future danger in prison,

and to testify concerning the correctional systems used in

a maximum security prison to manage inmates and prevent

acts of violence.” 264 Va. at 199, 563 S.E.2d at 713.

Porter’s proposed statistical projection on future violent

acts of an inmate who may be similarly situated to Porter

is nearly identical to the rejected claim in Bell. “The

testimony that Bell sought to introduce through the expert

concerned the conditions of prison life and the kind of

security features utilized in a maximum security facility.

That is the same kind of evidence that we have previously

rejected as not relevant to the future dangerousness

inquiry.” Id. at 201, 563 S.E.2d at 714. We rejected

Bell’s argument and found the circuit court committed no

abuse of discretion in denying his motion for appointment

67
of an expert because the proffered evidence was both (1)

improper rebuttal evidence for the same reasons as in

Burns, and (2) not relevant for mitigation because the

proffered evidence, like Porter’s evidence, was not

“peculiar to a defendant’s character, history and

background.” Id. Thus, “Bell failed to show a

‘particularized need’ for this expert.” Id at 201, 563

S.E.2d at 715. So has Porter.

Our analysis in Bell also informs as to why Porter’s

reliance on the Supreme Court decisions in Skipper, Simmons

and Williams is as unavailing here as it was in that case.

In Skipper and Williams, individualized and particularized

testimony about the defendant’s past behavior during

incarceration was available but not presented because in

one case it was barred by the trial court, see Skipper, 476

U.S. at 3-4, and in the other case defense counsel failed

to offer the individualized material that was available.

Williams, 529 U.S. at 368-71, 396. This was error because

each defendant was entitled to show these historical events

which were particularized and individualized to that

defendant. Id. Porter’s evidence is simply not of the

same character as that in Skipper and Williams because it

is not individualized or particularized to Porter’s past

68
criminal acts or incarceration as required by the statutory

factors on future dangerousness. 14

We also note that our use of the term “future

adaptability” in Bell and Juniper must be read in proper

context. That context is the statutory mandate for the

findings in Code §§ 19.2-264.2 and 19.2-264.4(C) which is

the guiding framework of our prior decisions relating to

future dangerousness. As noted earlier, the future

dangerousness finding is to be based on evidence of the

“prior history of the defendant or of the circumstances

surrounding the commission of the offense.” Code § 19.2-

264.4(C). Thus when we used the term “future

adaptability”, we meant that term only as future

dangerousness can be derived from the context of the

defendant’s past acts, both as to his “criminal record” and

“prior history” and including his past incarceration and

the circumstances of the capital crime. See Bell, 264 Va.

at 199, 563 S.E.2d at 713.

Porter’s defective proffer is not saved by his claim

on appeal that the Gray Declaration showed an

individualized or particularized proffer as to Porter. At

14
Similarly, Bell’s and Porter’s reliance on Simmons
was misplaced because that case dealt solely with
information regarding parole eligibility, an issue not

69
no place in the Prison Expert Motion, or in his oral

argument before the circuit court, does Porter state that

Dr. Cunningham intends to do in his case that which he

purported to do in the Gray case. Even if we assume that

the representation in the Gray Declaration would meet the

test of our prior decisions, Porter never proffered that

analysis was what he intended in this case. 15

Porter contends that he made a sufficiently

individualized proffer when arguing the Prison Expert

Motion before the circuit court. It is true that Porter

used some key terms like “individualized testimony” but his

entire argument on that point consisted of the following:

before the Court in this case. See Simmons, 512 U.S. at
156.
15
Even if we assumed Porter intended his proffer in
the Prison Expert Motion to be that Dr. Cunningham would do
for Porter what the Gray Declaration indicates for Mr.
Gray, the tenor of the Gray Declaration raises the same
issues already discussed with regard to our precedent in
Burns and Bell. Even though Dr. Cunningham has adopted the
use of key words like “individualized assessment,” the
analysis appears to be of the same genre of the rejected
proffers of how security measures in a future incarceration
may affect a defendant’s ability to commit more violent
acts. For example, he states in the Gray Declaration that
“[b]ecause risk is always a function of context or
preventative interventions, increased security measures can
act to significantly reduce the likelihood of Mr. Gray
engaging in serious violence in prison. Mr. Gray’s risk of
violence in the face of such increased security measures
can also be projected.” Our precedent is clear that such
evidence is not relevant either in rebuttal or mitigation
as to the future dangerousness factor.

70
This is individualized testimony with regard
to Thomas Porter’s future risk in a penitentiary
setting.

Dr. Cunningham, as stated in his affidavit
. . . will be able to opine in a scientific
matter based on an individualized assessment of
Mr. Porter, which includes prior behavior while
he was incarcerated in the past, to include the
76 unadjudicated bad acts that the Commonwealth
has noticed; appraisals of past security
requirements while he was incarcerated; and his
age; his level of education and comparative
review of the statistical data regarding
similarly-situated inmates.

The representation on oral argument is simply too vague to

have any meaning.

Porter’s proffer in the Prison Expert Motion fails to

address the statutory factors under Code § 19.2-264.2 and

19.2-264.4(C) as being individualized and particularized as

to Porter’s prior history, conviction record and the

circumstances of the crime. As our precedent would render

inadmissible the statistical speculation he does offer,

Porter has failed to show the “particularized need”

necessary to meet the Husske test. “In light of the

inadmissibility of the evidence that [Porter] sought to

introduce through the expert, he also failed to establish

how he would be prejudiced by the lack of the expert’s

assistance.” Bell, 264 Va. at 201, 563 S.E.2d at 715.

Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court did not

abuse its discretion in denying the Prison Expert Motion.

71
H. COMMENTS DURING CLOSING ARGUMENT ABOUT “SOCIETY”

In a separate assignment of error partially related to

his arguments on the Prison Expert Motion, Porter contends

that the circuit court erred during the penalty phase of

the trial when it made “prejudicial” comments and

“intemperate” curative instructions. Specifically, Porter

argues the circuit court “erred by making prejudicial

comments concerning the definition of ‘society’ during

defense counsel’s closing argument; by stating prejudicial,

intemperate, and one-sided ‘curative’ mid-argument

instructions on this point; and by denying the defendant’s

motion for a mistrial following this incident.”

The record shows that the circuit court interrupted

Porter’s counsel during closing argument in order to

instruct the jury that society meant “[e]verybody,

anywhere, anyplace, anytime” in response to comments from

counsel that “society” meant prison society. When Porter’s

counsel again made similar remarks, a discussion at the

bench occurred which led the court to comment to the jury

that “society” was a “definitional word” that was not

“complex” and “pretty simple” to understand. At no point

during either interruption did Porter’s counsel object to

the court’s comments. At the conclusion of his closing

arguments, Porter’s counsel moved for a mistrial based on

72
the court’s comments, which motion the court denied. The

next day, Porter filed a written mistrial motion, which the

court also denied.

Porter contends that the court’s comments violated his

Sixth Amendment right to have counsel present a summation

of the evidence to the jury and denied him a fair

opportunity to rebut the Commonwealth’s allegation that he

would be a continuing threat to society. Porter maintains

that the court’s comments prejudiced him as the jury could

have interpreted the comments as a form of rebuttal from

the court in which the court appeared to agree with the

Commonwealth’s contention that Porter was a continuing

threat to society.

We do not consider the merits of Porter’s contentions

because the record shows that he failed to timely object to

any of the circuit court’s comments. Rule 5:25. See also

Reid v. Baumgardner, 217 Va. 769, 774, 232 S.E.2d 778, 781

(1977) (citing Russo v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 251, 256-57,

148 S.E.2d 820, 824-25 (1966)) (finding that an objection

must be made at the time words are spoken and the objection

is waived if not timely made).

I. COURTROOM SECURITY
Porter also assigns as error the circuit court’s

ruling “denying the defendant’s motion for relief from

73
excessive, unjustified and prejudicial in-court security,

which included the presence of two uniformed officers

continuously standing over the seated defendant during the

proceedings.” Relevant to this assignment of error, the

parties stipulated for the record that the bench was 21

feet in front of counsel table and the bar of the court was

12 feet behind that table. Six deputies provided courtroom

security throughout Porter’s trial. One deputy stood by

the bench near the clerk, another stood near the witness

stand, a third deputy stood at the witnesses’ entrance, a

fourth deputy stood at the entrance to the spectator’s

gallery, and two others stood directly behind Porter

between counsel table and the bar. On the fifth day of his

trial, Porter objected to the two deputies standing behind

him instead of being seated.

Porter argued that these deputies should be seated

just within the bar of the court in accordance with a

security arrangement Porter alleged he made with the

sheriff’s office prior to trial. Porter maintained that

standing so close to him was unnecessary because he wore a

50,000 volt stun belt for security purposes, and that the

standing deputies prejudiced the jury by implying that

Porter was “incredibly dangerous.” The circuit court

responded that:

74
[O]ne, you have given me no Virginia statutory
provisions that says [sic] that I have the
authority to direct the sheriff’s department as
to how to conduct their security functions that
they are required to conduct for the courts in
Virginia.

Two, you haven’t given me a single Virginia
case that says that I have any authority in that
regard.

. . . .

I don’t believe I have the authority to tell
the sheriff’s department how to conduct security
in the courtrooms.

. . . .

I don’t believe you have given me enough
information to make me believe that what they are
doing is causing any undue prejudice in the
course of this trial. So I’m not going to accept
your invitation to go outside my authority to
tell them how to do their job.

The court also noted that:

[I]n fact, we are on the fifth day of the trial.
The procedures that you complain of, from my
observations, have been in place the entire
trial, every day of the trial.

I haven’t noticed any difference in the way
the bailiffs have operated or conducted
themselves for the full five days of this trial.
This is the first time that you have raised this
issue with the [c]ourt.

The following day, Porter’s counsel filed and argued a

written motion for relief from “excessive and prejudicial

in-court security presence.” Porter argued the “police

display not only destroys the presumption of innocence to

75
which every defendant is entitled, but also impermissibly

telegraphs law enforcement’s answer to the sentence-related

determination of whether the defendant poses a continuing

threat of future violence.” Porter supplied the court with

supplemental authority reflecting that the control of

courtroom security was within the circuit court’s

discretion and renewed his request that the deputies be

seated in chairs just inside the bar of the court instead

of standing.

In response, the Commonwealth noted that on February

15, 2007, while in custody awaiting trial, Porter had

refused to obey deputies’ instructions to leave his holding

cell to be brought into court. Consequently, the deputies

had been obliged to adopt unusual measures on that

occasion: “to actually handcuff him behind his back, to

put a stun belt on, and had [him placed in] shackles in

stocking feet.” The Commonwealth stipulated that Porter

had not misbehaved while in the courtroom but that the

deputies “obviously . . . have to be aware of the

defendant’s history and . . . that’s something they take

into account when they decide what measures they need to

take in regard to any particular defendant in a courtroom

during trial. So . . . that is something that cannot be

ignored.”

76
The Commonwealth also observed that the deputies had

simply been standing behind Porter and had not interfered

with the proceedings or attempted to influence the jury:

They are standing there still, quiet; they
are not making any gestures towards Mr. Porter
that would indicate their opinion of whether Mr.
Porter presents a danger to the courtroom. They
just appear to be stationed in a certain location
within the courtroom as other deputies are
stationed, and the place they are stationed has
to do with what their duties are.

. . . .

So I think the security measures being taken
are reasonable. I don’t think they are such that
the jury would think anything of them at all or
think they reflect any message that is being sent
to them regarding the defendant.

The circuit court declined to order the deputies to

sit down and noted:

One additional fact, though, from the
February 15th hearing has to be put on the record
that the [c]ourt security is aware of and that is
although – actually, two additional facts.

Although there was no in-court, during-
court-proceedings outbursts, the day began with
him refusing to leave his cell and they had to
physically dress him. So he wasn’t cooperative
from that point on that day. And that day also
included clear evidence by the sheriff’s
department that he did attempt to tamper with the
stun belt that he was wearing at the time.

So he has demonstrated on prior occasions
where the sheriffs have, in their efforts to
provide their constitutional mandate under the
Code of Virginia to provide courtroom security,
to present him in a way in which he does not
appear in any forms of shackles, he has

77
demonstrated that he’s not necessarily willing to
comply.

. . . .

And the problem with [them] sitting down is
the field of vision. It does affect their field
of vision.

Later that day, Porter noted that, although the

deputies had moved back to stand between 6 and 7 feet

behind him during trial, they were moving to stand within 2

feet whenever Porter stood. On this basis, Porter moved

for a mistrial, which the circuit court denied.

Porter testified in his own defense on the seventh day

of the trial. Prior to testifying, however, Porter renewed

his motion for relief from the positioning of deputies in

the courtroom. The Commonwealth responded that additional

deputies had similarly been present during the testimony of

another witness, Henry Chatman, who was in custody at the

time of his testimony. The Commonwealth argued that

additional security measures were therefore not

particularized to Porter. “It’s [sic] looks like standard

courtroom security measures in any case. I don’t believe

it conveys any prejudicial message to the jury as [Porter]

suggested.”

The circuit court agreed with the Commonwealth:

[S]ecurity exists to the extent that it
exists in this particular case not just because

78
it’s a responsibility of the sheriff to do so,
but because Mr. Porter has throughout his
confinement and court appearances demonstrated
reasons why they need to be concerned. And I
have articulated those for the record previously
and those things have not changed.

Other than that, though, I find that there
is not a sense of overwhelming force; there are
no guns drawn, they are casual, they are sitting.
They are motionless. They are simply in a
position to make sure that nothing happens.

I think that’s reasonable. I don’t think
that in the context of the entire trial that this
is the type of – this reaches the level of
concerns that you have addressed with your case
law that you have submitted to the [c]ourt. And
therefore, though you note it, I’m not going to
direct them to change.

After sentencing, Porter again alleged in a motion for

a new trial that courtroom security had been excessive and

prejudicial. He now assigns error to the adverse rulings

of the circuit court, arguing that the courtroom security

arrangement “negated [his] presumption of innocence” and,

by implying that Porter was dangerous, prejudiced him at

sentencing because the jury’s decision “ultimately rested

on the dangerousness predicate alone.” On appeal, Porter

contends that the decisions of the United States Supreme

Court in Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005), Holbrook v.

Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (1986), and Estelle v. Williams, 425

U.S. 501 (1976) support his argument and require reversal

of the circuit court’s judgment. We disagree.

79
We review Porter’s claim for abuse of discretion by

the circuit court. Frye v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 370, 381,

345 S.E.2d 267, 276 (1986). However, “[a circuit] court by

definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of

law. . . . The abuse-of-discretion standard includes

review to determine that the discretion was not guided by

erroneous legal conclusions.” Koon v. United States, 518

U.S. 81, 100 (1996); see also Twine v. Commonwealth, 48 Va.

App. 224, 231, 629 S.E.2d 714, 718 (2006); Auer v.

Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 637, 643, 621 S.E.2d 140, 143

(2005).

The circuit court misstated the law in response to

Porter’s initial motion on the fifth day of trial when he

opined the control of courtroom security was outside the

court’s purview. However, the court quickly corrected its

misinterpretation the next day when Porter responded to the

circuit court’s invitation to supply legal authority. “The

trial judge has overall supervision of courtroom security.”

Payne v. Commonwealth, 233 Va. 460, 466, 357 S.E.2d 500,

504 (1987). Because of our resolution on the merits, the

circuit court’s initial ruling and mistake in determining

the proper discretion over courtroom security is of no

consequence.

80
“[O]ne accused of a crime is entitled to have his

guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the

evidence introduced at trial, and not on grounds of

official suspicion, indictment, continued custody, or other

circumstances not adduced as proof at trial.” Taylor v.

Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 485 (1978). Accordingly, courts

are required “to safeguard against ‘the intrusion of

factors into the trial process that tend to subvert its

purpose’” by prejudicing the jury. Woods v. Dugger, 923

F.2d 1454, 1456 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Estes v. Texas,

381 U.S. 532, 560 (1962) (Warren, C.J., concurring)).

Naturally, “[t]he actual impact of a particular

practice on the judgment of jurors cannot always be fully

determined. But . . . the probability of deleterious

effects on fundamental rights calls for close judicial

scrutiny.” Estelle, 425 U.S. at 504. That close scrutiny

consists of “look[ing] at the scene presented to jurors and

determin[ing] whether what they saw was so inherently

prejudicial as to pose an unacceptable threat to

defendant's right to a fair trial; if the challenged

practice is not found inherently prejudicial and if the

defendant fails to show actual prejudice, the inquiry is

over.” Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 572. In the case at bar,

Porter has demonstrated no actual prejudice. Accordingly,

81
our review is limited to the question whether the courtroom

security measures permitted by the circuit court over

Porter’s objection were inherently prejudicial.

The Supreme Court decisions in Estelle and Deck are

fundamentally distinguishable from the circumstances of the

case at bar. Estelle concerned a defendant being required

to appear for trial in distinct prison garb. Deck dealt

with a defendant compelled to appear at trial in visible

shackles and other restraints. These circumstances are not

present in Porter’s case and we determine Estelle and Deck

to be factually distinguishable. Holbrook is closer,

factually, to the case at bar, but does not provide the

support Porter envisions.

“Whenever a courtroom arrangement is challenged as

inherently prejudicial . . . the question must be . . .

whether ‘an unacceptable risk is presented of impermissible

factors coming into play.’ ” Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 570

(quoting Estelle, 425 U.S. at 505). The Supreme Court in

Holbrook dealt with the prejudicial effect courtroom

security officers may have on a jury. There, six

defendants were tried jointly upon charges of robbery and

four uniformed state troopers sat immediately behind them,

albeit outside the bar of the court in the first row of the

spectators’ gallery. Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 562. The Court

82
held that, while “[w]e do not minimize the threat that a

roomful of uniformed and armed policemen might pose to a

defendant's chances of receiving a fair trial . . . we

simply cannot find an unacceptable risk of prejudice in the

spectacle of four such officers quietly sitting in the

first row of a courtroom's spectator section.” Holbrook,

475 U.S. at 570-71. “Even had the jurors been aware that

the deployment of troopers was not common practice . . . we

cannot believe that the use of the four troopers tended to

brand respondent in their eyes ‘with an unmistakable mark

of guilt.’ ” Id. at 571. Moreover, the Court expressly

declined to create “a presumption that any use of

identifiable security guards in the courtroom is inherently

prejudicial. In view of the variety of ways in which such

guards can be deployed, we believe that a case-by-case

approach is more appropriate.” Id. at 569.

The Court clearly considered the practical reality

that security presence in any courtroom is usually not

inherently prejudicial:

Jurors may just as easily believe that the
officers are there to guard against disruptions
emanating from outside the courtroom or to ensure
that tense courtroom exchanges do not erupt into
violence. Indeed, it is entirely possible that
jurors will not infer anything at all from the
presence of the guards. If they are placed at
some distance from the accused, security officers
may well be perceived more as elements of an

83
impressive drama than as reminders of the
defendant’s special status. Our society has
become inured to the presence of armed guards in
most public places; they are doubtless taken for
granted so long as their numbers or weaponry do
not suggest particular official concern or alarm.

Id.

Holbrook presents facts different from those of the

case at bar. For example, in the case at bar, Porter was

the only defendant tried; in Holbrook, there were six co-

defendants. Here, the deputies stood inside the bar of the

court; in Holbrook, the troopers sat outside the bar of the

court. On the other hand, Porter was directly guarded not

by four deputies but by only two. Additionally, the bar of

the court was some 12 feet behind Porter, certainly a

considerable distance from the first row of the gallery and

only insignificantly shortened by placing chairs just

inside the bar. The circuit court also found that the

deputies’ field of vision would have been obstructed had

they been seated instead of standing. Given the relatively

cavernous size of the well of the courtroom described by

the dimensions on the record, having two deputies stand

instead of sit, or to be positioned around the courtroom to

help secure it, was not unreasonable or excessive.

Further, even if the deputies’ positions in the

courtroom and standing behind Porter were prejudicial, the

84
security measures were justified. While a defendant may

not, under ordinary conditions, be forced to wear visible

physical restraints because of the possibility of

prejudice, Deck, 544 U.S. at 629, such restraints may be

constitutionally justified in the presence of a valid state

interest, such as that of ensuring the security of the

courtroom and those present in it, Id. at 626-27, or even

that of maintaining the “dignity, order, and decorum” of

court proceedings. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343

(1970).

The record in the case at bar shows Porter had both

previously disobeyed the instructions of security officers

and tampered with his concealed restraining device. On

these facts, any prejudicial effect of the deputies

standing behind Porter is overborne by their need to

maintain an adequate field of vision of his hands,

furthering the essential state interest in preserving the

safety of the courtroom’s occupants and ensuring Porter’s

continued detention. While Porter argues that the circuit

court held no hearing and made no specific finding that the

security measures were justified, neither was necessary.

“A trial court may consider various factors in determining”

what security measures may be necessary, and “[t]his

85
determination need not be made upon a formal hearing.”

Frye, 231 Va. at 381-82, 345 S.E.2d at 276.

Therefore, “look[ing] at the scene presented to

jurors,” Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 572, we find that the

security measures endorsed by the circuit court presented

no risk of inherent prejudice. Accordingly, the circuit

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Porter’s

motions.

J. PORTER’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE DEFINITION
OF “PROBABILITY” WITH REGARD TO FUTURE DANGEROUSNESS

In his seventh assignment of error, Porter contends

that the circuit court erred by not providing to the jury

at the penalty phase of his trial an instruction he

proffered which defined the term “probability” of future

violent conduct based on language in Smith v. Commonwealth,

219 Va. 455, 248 S.E.2d 135 (1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S.

967 (1979).

In Smith, this Court held that the terms

“probability,” “criminal acts of violence,” and “continuing

serious threat to society,” as those terms are used in the

statutory definition of the future dangerousness

aggravating factor 16 are not unconstitutionally vague. Id.

16
With regard to “future dangerousness,” Code § 19.2-
264.2 states that a sentence of death can be imposed only
if a court or jury finds “a probability that the defendant

86
at 477, 248 S.E.2d at 148. We went on to say the following

about those terms:

In our view, [the statutory language] is
designed to focus the fact-finder’s attention on
prior criminal conduct as the principal predicate
for a prediction of future “dangerousness.” If
the defendant has been previously convicted of
“criminal acts of violence”, i.e., serious crimes
against the person committed by intentional acts
of unprovoked violence, there is a reasonable
“probability”, i.e., a likelihood substantially
greater than a mere possibility, that he would
commit similar crimes in the future. Such a
probability fairly supports the conclusion that
society would

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1058473. Public record. Not legal advice.