Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's appeal of her condition of driving on a suspended license, fifth offense, on the basis that her notice of appeal was fatally defective, holding that Appellant's notice of appeal was adequate.After oral argument on the merits, the court of appeals sua sponte raised the inconsistency between Appellant's notice of appeal, which identified the Commonwealth of Virginia as the prosecuting authority, and the circuit court's sentencing order, which named Albermarle County as the prosecuting authority. On remand, the circuit court entered an order nunc pro tunc that retained Albemarle County as the prosecuting authority. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as "fatally defective." The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) while the notice of appeal incorrectly named the Commonwealth rather than Albemarle County, that defect was not fatal and was subject to waiver; and (2) because Albemarle County entered a general appearance, any defect associated with a failure to notify the County was waived. View "Nicholson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's misdemeanor conviction for attempting to purchase a firearm while subject to a protective order, holding that the admission of certain evidence did not violate Defendant's confrontation right.At issue was whether a return of service on a preliminary protective order, which included the serving deputy's signature and the time and date of service, was testimonial evidence subject to exclusion under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court of appeals concluded that the signing and dating of the return of service was a ministerial duty on the part of the deputy sheriff that was functionally distinct from the delivery of live testimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the return of service was intended to serve a primarily administrative purpose, not to create an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony, and therefore, the admission of the evidence did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to confrontation. View "Logan v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of carrying a concealed weapon, second offense, in violation of Va. Code 18.2-308, holding that the trial court erred by failing to apply the statutory exception to criminal liability recognized in subsection 18.2-308(C)(8).The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction for violating section 18.2-308(A). On appeal, Defendant argued that the statutory exception to criminal liability recognized by subsection 18.2-308(C)(8) applied to the undisputed facts of this case. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that Defendant was entitled to the protection of subsection (C)(8)'s exception to criminal liability for carrying a concealed weapon because the handgun at issue in this case was secured in a container within Defendant's personal, private vehicle. View "Myers v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for refusing to take a breath or blood test in violation of Va. Code 29.1-738.2 and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the trial court erred when it held that Defendant had been required to challenge the lawfulness of his arrest prior to trial pursuant to Va. Code 19.2-266.2.During trial, Defendant argued that his arrest was unlawful and that certain evidence had not been supported by probate cause. The trial court ruled that Defendant's objection to his arrest had to be raised by motion or objection before trial, in accordance with section 19.2-266.2(A), and denied his objection. Thereafter, the trial court found Defendant guilty. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by not permitting him to present evidence in support of his challenge to the lawfulness of his arrest. View "Green v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of raping and taking indecent liberties with a minor, holding that any error in the circuit court's ruling excluding certain testimony was harmless.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred by excluding the testimony of the complaining witness's aunt to impeach the complaining witness's credibility. The court of appeals ruled that the statement was not admissible impeachment evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, assuming without deciding that the court of appeals erred by ruling that the proffered testimony was inadmissible, any such error was harmless. View "Haas v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court ordering Defendant to be civilly committed as a sexually violent predator for purposes of Virginia's Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA), Va. Code 37.2-900 through -921, holding that any error by the circuit court in construing Va. Code 37.2-906 was harmless.At his commitment hearing, Defendant sought to introduce as substantive evidence the results of two prior mental health evaluations by a previous Commonwealth expert. The circuit court concluded that section 37.2-906 foreclosed the introduction of this evidence due to Defendant's failure to cooperate with the required evaluation in the present proceedings. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) section 37.2-906 applies to probable cause hearings rather than civil commitment hearings; and (2) any error by the trial court in construing the statutes was harmless. View "Ferrara v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions for animate object sexual penetration, aggravated sexual battery, and custodial sexual abuse, holding that that the court of appeals did not err in affirming the trial court's judgment.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant was not prejudiced by the introduction of the titles of child pornography downloads found on the desktop computer in Defendant's bedroom; and (2) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to poll the jury filed before the jury had begun its sentencing phase deliberations due to the nature of the bifurcated procedure in criminal trials. View "Kenner v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendants' convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, holding that Va. Code 19.2-294 does not preclude a conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon when the defendant was convicted in a prior prosecution of carrying a concealed weapon.Both defendants in these appeals were previously convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and argued that section 19.2-294 parried their prosecution for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. The Supreme Court disagreed after clarifying the proper test governing the application of the successive prosecution bar found in section 19.2-294, holding that the statute did not bar Defendants' prosecutions for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. View "Evans v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of defrauding a hotel restaurant when she obtained food from the restaurant without paying, holding that a rational trier of fact could not have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.Defendant was convicted of violating Va. Code 18.2-188(b)(2), which makes it unlawful for any person who "without paying therefor, and with the intent to cheat or defraud the owner or keeper to...obtain food from a restaurant or other eating house." On appeal, Defendant argued that the plain language of section 18.2-188(b)(2) requires proof of specific intent to defraud at the time the benefit is received and that the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to prove she possessed the intent to defraud at the time she obtained the meal. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 18.2-188(b)(2) required proof that Defendant had the intent to cheat or defraud the hotel restaurant at the time she gained possession of the food; and (2) the trial court did not find the essential element of specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt - that Defendant possessed the intent to cheat or defraud the hotel restaurant at the time she obtained the food. View "Caldwell v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions for aggravated involuntary manslaughter and driving while intoxicated, holding that the Commonwealth presented evidence sufficient to support jury verdicts finding that Defendant had, prior to the accident, self-administered intoxicants that impaired his ability to drive safely.At the close of the Commonwealth's evidence, Defendant moved to strike it on the ground that the Commonwealth had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs in his blood were self-administered. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury found Defendant guilty. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's assignments of error relating to the question of whether the drugs found in his blood had been self-administered were without merit. View "Lambert v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law