Stanley Dion Tate v. Commonwealth

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bumgardner, Frank and Humphreys
Argued at Salem, Virginia
STANLEY DION TATE
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 2956-04-3 JUDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS
DECEMBER 20, 2005
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY
William N. Alexander, II, Judge
Andrea C. Long (Boone, Beale, Cosby & Long, on brief), for
appellant.
John H. McLees, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Judith Williams
Jagdmann, Attorney General; Alice T. Armstrong, Assistant
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Stanley Dion Tate (“Tate”) appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for voluntary
manslaughter. On appeal, Tate argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his
conviction. More specifically, Tate contends that the killing was not the result of an intentional
act, but was a justifiable killing for which he should be acquitted. However, because defense
counsel took a contrary position before the trial court, we hold that Tate is procedurally barred
from arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for voluntary
manslaughter. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below.
Tate was indicted for murder and use of a firearm in the commission of murder and tried
before a jury. Following the Commonwealth’s case in chief, and again at the conclusion of all
the evidence, Tate’s counsel moved to strike the evidence, arguing that “there is no evidence
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Moreover,
as this opinion has no precedential value, we recite only those facts necessary to our holding.
whatsoever of any malice . . . [therefore] [t]he best that we would have is either a voluntary or
involuntary manslaughter.” Consistent with this legal position, Tate asked that the jury be
instructed on the lesser-included offenses of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. The trial
court instructed the jury on second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary
manslaughter. The jury then convicted Tate of voluntary manslaughter. On appeal, Tate now
contends the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of voluntary manslaughter.
“The principle is long standing in Virginia that an appellate court will not ‘notice error
which has been invited by the party seeking to take advantage thereof on appeal.’” McBride v.
Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 526, 529-30, 605 S.E.2d 773, 774 (2004) (quoting Saunders v.
Commonwealth, 211 Va. 399, 400, 177 S.E.2d 637, 638 (1970)). In other words,
even if we were to assume that the court’s ruling was technically
erroneous, . . . [the appellant] is barred from invoking it on appeal.
No litigant, even a defendant in a criminal case, will be permitted
to approbate and reprobate—to invite error . . . and then to take
advantage of the situation created by his own wrong.
Fisher v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 403, 417, 374 S.E.2d 46, 54 (1988).
In this case, counsel for Tate moved to strike the evidence as to the murder charge,
suggesting that the evidence instead supported two alternative charges, voluntary or involuntary
manslaughter. And, during oral argument before this Court, Tate’s counsel conceded that she
proffered the jury instruction for voluntary manslaughter.1 By offering the instruction for
voluntary manslaughter, Tate’s counsel “invited the judge to give the instructions to the jury, the
act [s]he now asserts to be error.” McBride, 44 Va. App. at 530-31, 605 S.E.2d at 775. Clearly,
1
Specifically, when asked whether she objected to the jury instruction for the
lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter, defense counsel responded, “Of course I
did not. I . . . offered the instruction as a [trial] strategy.” Defense counsel further asserted that
she “felt like [she] had no choice but to offer all of the lesser[-included offenses].” It is evident
from this concession that defense counsel offered the jury instruction for voluntary, as well as
involuntary, manslaughter.
-2-
Tate, “having [asked for and] agreed upon the action taken by the trial court should not be
allowed to assume an inconsistent position.” Clark v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 201, 214, 257
S.E.2d 784, 792 (1979). Thus, we affirm his conviction for voluntary manslaughter.
Affirmed.
-3-