The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Butler v. Commonwealth
No. 012826Supreme Court of Virginia
012826 Butler v. Commonwealth 11/01/2002 A murder defendant was not entitled to a continuance when the prospective jury panel was reconstituted and his counsel did not receive the new jury panel list forty-eig…
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.The activity
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The source
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
012826 Butler v. Commonwealth 11/01/2002 A murder defendant was not entitled to a continuance when the prospective jury panel was…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- November 1, 2002
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Official docket
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
Docket entry
012826 Butler v. Commonwealth 11/01/2002 A murder defendant was not entitled to a continuance when the prospective jury panel was reconstituted and his counsel did not receive the new jury panel list forty-eight hours before trial. Because the requirements of Code § 8.01-353 are directory rather than mandatory, and defendant suffered no specific prejudice, the judgment of the Court of Appeals, upholding the circuit court's refusal to grant a continuance, is affirmed. (Revised 11/20/02)
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
012826 Butler v. Commonwealth 11/01/2002 A murder defendant was not entitled to a continuance when the prospective jury panel was reconstituted and his counsel did not receive the new jury panel list forty-eight hours before trial. Because the requirements of Code § 8.01-353 are directory rather than mandatory, and defendant suffered no specific prejudice, the judgment of the Court of Appeals, upholding the circuit court's refusal to grant a continuance, is affirmed. (Revised 11/20/02)
Outcome words in this text: affirmed.
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
Documents and links