The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
Giles v. Commonwealth
080906 Giles v. Commonwealth 02/27/2009 In a burglary prosecution under Code § 18.2-89, the Commonwealth was not required to prove that the structure alleged to be a "dwelling house" was inhabited at regular i…
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
080906 Giles v. Commonwealth 02/27/2009 In a burglary prosecution under Code § 18.2-89, the Commonwealth was not required to prov…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- February 27, 2009
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
080906 Giles v. Commonwealth 02/27/2009 In a burglary prosecution under Code § 18.2-89, the Commonwealth was not required to prove that the structure alleged to be a "dwelling house" was inhabited at regular intervals. Rather, the Commonwealth must provide sufficient evidence that the structure is used as a habitation to satisfy the statute. Evidence of occasional stays at the house, considered together with evidence of current utility services, furnishings, food and other supplies, was sufficient indicia of habitation and actual use of the structure for it to be deemed a dwelling house. Thus the court of appeals did not err in affirming the circuit court's ruling that the structure in this…
Open court document ↗Rulings in this case over time
Courts at different levels and stages can reach different results in the same case. Each entry is the court's own record; read it before drawing a conclusion.
1 entry, oldest first.
· Supreme Court of Virginia
Affirmed
The court's record, as written
080906 Giles v. Commonwealth 02/27/2009 In a burglary prosecution under Code § 18.2-89, the Commonwealth was not required to prove that the structure alleged to be a "dwelling house" was inhabited at regular intervals. Rather, the Commonwealth must provide sufficient evidence that the structure is used as a habitation to satisfy the statute. Evidence of occasional stays at the house, considered together with evidence of current utility services, furnishings, food and other supplies, was sufficient indicia of habitation and actual use of the structure for it to be deemed a dwelling house. Thus the court of appeals did not err in affirming the circuit court's ruling that the structure in this…
Outcome words in this text: affirming.
Method: an entry is marked with an outcome only when its own text contains the outcome word, and the word is shown beside it. Orders, opinions and judgments whose text does not say are marked Other. Party filings, notices and routine procedural orders (appearances, extra pages, time extensions, scheduling) are not listed. No link between this case and any other case is recorded in our data, so only this case's own record is shown. Open the court's docket
