context: The holding that appellant urges this Court to adopt in this appeal would require us to add language to Code SS 19.2-307 that the General Assembly did not actually include when it enacted that statute and would also be patently absurd.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 180 Va. 36, 41
citation_a.parenthetical: "[W]here a particular construction of a statute will result in an absurdity, some other reasonable construction which will not produce the absurdity will be found."
citation_a.sentence: See Farrakhan v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 177, 181, 639 S.E.2d 227, 230 (2007) (explaining that an appellate court “must not add to the words of the statute nor ignore the words of the statute”); see also Miller v. Commonwealth, 180 Va. 36, 41, 21 S.E.2d 721, 723 (1942) (“[W]here a particular construction of a statute will result in an absurdity, some other reasonable construction which will not produce the absurdity will be found.”). In this case, the factfinder at appellant’s felony trial was required to decide whether appellant had actually been convicted of the requisite number of misdemeanor predicate offenses.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 639 S.E.2d 227, 230
citation_b.parenthetical: explaining that an appellate court "must not add to the words of the statute nor ignore the words of the statute"
citation_b.sentence: See Farrakhan v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 177, 181, 639 S.E.2d 227, 230 (2007) (explaining that an appellate court “must not add to the words of the statute nor ignore the words of the statute”); see also Miller v. Commonwealth, 180 Va. 36, 41, 21 S.E.2d 721, 723 (1942) (“[W]here a particular construction of a statute will result in an absurdity, some other reasonable construction which will not produce the absurdity will be found.”). In this case, the factfinder at appellant’s felony trial was required to decide whether appellant had actually been convicted of the requisite number of misdemeanor predicate offenses.