reasoning that where an appellate court accepts a concession on a legal issue, that concession provides "not ... a basis for deciding [the earlier] contested issue of law, but ... a basis for not deciding it” (emphasis added)
How later courts described this case
- reasoning that where an appellate court accepts a concession on a legal issue, that concession provides "not ... a basis for deciding [the earlier] contested issue of law, but ... a basis for not deciding it” (emphasis added)
- noting that “[o]n purely factual questions, . . . we can and do rely on the adversarial process to sort out the contested and the uncontested aspects of the case” before we apply legal principles under the applicable appellate standard
- explaining that an appellate court may not accept even formal concessions of law without independently confirming their correctness
- noting that a concession can constitute a waiver
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BENTON
and ELDER, JJ., concurring in the judgment reversing the conviction.
For the reasons contained in the majority panel opinion, Logan v. Commonwealth, 46 Va.App. 213 , 616 S.E.2d 744 (2005), we would reverse the conviction and dismiss the indictment. We, therefore, concur in the judgment reversing the conviction and dismissing the indictment.