Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. The circuit court accepted the guilty plea and entered it in the record. Defendant subsequently asked the circuit court to withhold a finding of guilt and defer the disposition. The circuit court denied the request, concluding that it lacked the authority to withhold a finding of guilt and defer adjudication for possible future dismissal of the charges. The court then entered an order finding Defendant guilty. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court’s accepting and entering Defendant’s guilty pleas in a written order was not a formal adjudication of guilt; and (2) thus, the court erred in concluding it no longer had the inherent authority to consider any disposition other than to impose the legislatively prescribed punishment. View "Starrs v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for felony child abuse and neglect. Defendant made an Alford plea, and the circuit court found Defendant guilty and placed Defendant on supervised probation. The following year, while attempting to purchase a firearm, Defendant completed a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms form (ATF form) indicating she was not under indictment or information for a felony. Defendant was later found guilty of willfully and intentionally making a false statement on the ATF form. Defendant’s probation was subsequently revoked, and Defendant was convicted on the earlier child neglect charge. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing that she was not under indictment when she filled out the ATF form because her indictment was extinguished upon making an Alford plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that Defendant knew she was under indictment when she completed the ATF form. View "Maldonado-Mejia v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant, a teacher at a vocational school who also supervised students on the sidewalk outside his classroom, was indicted on three counts of taking indecent liberties with a minor by a person in a custodial or supervisory relationship. A jury convicted Defendant on all three counts. At issue on appeal was whether the evidence showed Defendant had a custodial or supervisory relationship over A.G., a student at the school, who was not one of Defendant’s students but whom Defendant saw every day when he monitored the sidewalk. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that the proscribed acts occurred while Defendant maintained a custodial or supervisory relationship with A.G. View "Linnon v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography. Defendant appealed, contending that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the evidence seized from his computer. The court of appeals dismissed Defendant’s petition for appeal. The court declined to address the Fourth Amendment question and instead ruled, sua sponte, that defendant’s assignment of error was insufficient under Va. Sup. Ct. R. 5A:12(c). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant’s assignment of error was sufficiently detailed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 5A:12(c). Remanded with directions to review the petition for appeal on the merits. View "Findlay v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder and violation of a protective order. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by failing to order a second competency evaluation after his counsel discovered new information regarding Defendant’s life history and physical trauma he suffered in his youth. The court of appeals denied Defendant’s petition for appeal. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court of appeals erred in denying his appeal because there was probable cause to believe he was incompetent to stand trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was no probable cause to order a second competency evaluation. View "Dang v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Based on a confession Defendant made to his daughter that was repeated to the police, the grand jury returned a true bill for aggravated sexual battery. The circuit court found Defendant guilty of aggravated sexual battery. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the circuit court did not err in holding that sufficient evidence existed for the Commonwealth to prove the corpus delicti of aggravated sexual battery and that sufficient evidence existed to convict Defendant for the crime of aggravated sexual battery. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that although the evidence was sufficient to show Defendant confessed to aggravated sexual battery, the testimony of Defendant’s daughter failed to provide independent evidence that slightly corroborated the corpus delicti of aggravated sexual battery, and thus the circuit court’s judgment against Defendant lacked sufficient evidence to support it. View "Allen v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

George Huguely was convicted in 2012 of murdering his former girlfriend. Huguely's trial received extensive publicity. Virginia Broadcasting Corporation (VBC), the owner of a television station, filed a request to have a camera in the courtroom to broadcast Huguely's sentencing hearing. After a hearing, the trial court denied VBC's request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err (1) by failing to apply a "good cause shown" standard in its initial determination whether to permit coverage of Huguely's sentencing hearing; and (2) in holding that VBC's newsgathering and reporting activities via electronic media were entitled to no protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or the Virginia Constitution. View "Virginia Broad. Corp. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In 1989, Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual battery and attempting to commit forcible sodomy. In 2005, Appellant was found not to be a sexually violent predator pursuant to the Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act. In 2008, Appellant was found guilty of violating his parole and was reincarcerated for his 1989 sexual offenses. Prior to his release from incarceration, the Commonwealth filed a second petition in 2011 to civilly commit Appellant as a sexually violent predator. Appellant moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that it was barred by res judicata. The circuit court denied the motion. The court subsequently found Appellant was a sexually violent predator and ordered him committed. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Appellant's motion to dismiss, holding that the application of res judicata was inappropriate in this case where the 2011 petition was not dependent upon the same evidence as the 2005 proceeding, nor did the 2011 petition arise from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence. View "Rhoten v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After the mass shooting at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 2007, the administrators of the estates of two of the victims of the shooting filed wrongful death suits against the Commonwealth, claiming that the Commonwealth was liable for the actions of the Commonwealth's employees at the university pursuant to the Virginia Tort Claims Act. Specifically, the administrators claimed that a special relationship existed between the Commonwealth's employees at the university and the victims that gave rise to the Commonwealth's duty to warn the victims of third party criminal acts. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Administrators. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, without deciding that a special relationship existed between the Commonwealth and the university students, no duty to warn students of harm by a third party criminal arose under the circumstances of this case. View "Commonwealth v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of malicious wounding. Appellant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. The court of appeals affirmed, finding that the evidence was sufficient to prove intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill where Appellant struck the victim with a single blow with his bare fist. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances, there was sufficient evidence of violence and brutality on the part of Appellant for the circuit court to find that Appellant acted with malice and intent to maim the victim even though he delivered only one blow with a closed fist. View "Burkeen v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law