in Kirk, we hold that the trial court’s refusal to sever the charges is harmless error. Although Kirk controls our harmless error ruling in this case, we are troubled by the trial court’s disregard for the clear holding in Johnson and Long that the charge should have been severed. See id. (noting that the development of case rendered harmless “any error that may have initially occurred” in the denial of the motion to sever (emphasis added)). The error here is rendered “harmless” only because the defendant decided to testify in one or more of the cases, a dilemma he should not have been required to confront had the trial court applied the Johnson and Long holdings. Nevertheless, we are bound by the Kirk decision, see Commonwealth v. Burns, 240 Va. 171, 174-75, 395 S.E.2d 456, 457 (1990) (<HOLDING>), unless this Court should determine en banc
holding that stare decisis is not applicable unless the issue was squarely addressed in a prior decision holding that one panel of this court is bound by the precedent of an earlier panel absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision of the supreme court holding that decision by panel of this court is established precedent under rules of stare decisis holding stare decisis applies when one court of appeals panel is faced with previous decision of different panel recognizing that the doctrine of stare decisis embodies the obligation to follow precedent