With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Va. at 462-63, 544 S.E.2d at 305-06 (pretrial motion waived when defendant failed to request a ruling from the trial court). Indeed, that was precisely the procedure followed by the defendant in Thomas v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 216, 559 S.E.2d 652 (2002), a case in which this Court reversed a trial court’s refusal to grant a change of venue. Thomas filed a pre-trial motion for a change of venue, which the trial court took under advisement, but Thomas, unlike Green, renewed the motion following voir dire. Id. at 230, 559 S.E.2d at 659. Not only did Green fail to renew his motion for a change of venue once the court took it under advisement, he also implicitly consented to the seating of the jury in this case. Cf. Commonwealth v. Washington, 263 Va. 298, 304, 559 S.E.2d 636, 639 (2002) (<HOLDING>); but cf. King v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 576,

A: holding trial courts instruction adequate when defendant failed to request a sharper rebuke before moving for a mistrial
B: holding that if defendant moved for or consented to mistrial retrial of defendant was not barred on double jeopardy grounds
C: holding that delay caused by or consented to by a defendant is not unreasonable
D: holding defendant implicitly consented to trial courts declaration of a mistrial
D.