Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Sergeant Hoggard of the Norfolk Sheriff’s Office received information about cocaine in cell block 2K of the Norfolk City Jail. During a search, a narcotics-detecting canine alerted to a personal property bag on Jerome Lee Wilkerson’s bunk. The bag contained toilet paper rolls and paperwork with Wilkerson’s name. Inside one roll was a plastic bag with 1.03 grams of cocaine. Wilkerson admitted the bag was his but denied knowledge of the cocaine. He stated that no one else accessed his bag and that he checked it every 15 minutes.Wilkerson was charged in the Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk with possession of a controlled substance. At trial, Sergeant Hoggard testified about the search and Wilkerson’s statements. The circuit court denied Wilkerson’s motion to strike, found him guilty, and sentenced him to nine months’ incarceration. Wilkerson appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, stating that Wilkerson’s statement alone was insufficient to prove knowing possession of the cocaine.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence, including Wilkerson’s statement about his exclusive control over the bag, was sufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilkerson knowingly possessed the cocaine. The court emphasized that the factfinder could reasonably reject Wilkerson’s hypothesis of innocence. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the circuit court’s judgment, finding that the circuit court’s decision was not plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. View "Commonwealth v. Wilkerson" on Justia Law

Tanya Rashae Holland pleaded no contest to felony child neglect resulting in serious injury after giving her three-year-old son methadone, mistaking it for Zyrtec. Her son lost consciousness and nearly died. Holland was indicted and initially chose a jury trial but later entered a no contest plea. Before sentencing, she was appointed new counsel and moved to withdraw her plea, claiming it was entered based on misrepresentations by her former counsel. The trial court denied her motion and sentenced her to five years, suspended on certain conditions.Holland appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying her motion to withdraw her plea. The Court of Appeals of Virginia agreed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion. The appellate court found that Holland had shown a reasonable defense, moved to withdraw her plea in good faith, and that the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate undue prejudice. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for trial.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Holland’s motion to withdraw her plea. The Supreme Court emphasized that the trial court’s findings should be viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and that the burden was on Holland to prove her plea was entered under an honest mistake of fact. The Supreme Court found that the trial court could reasonably conclude that Holland did not meet this burden, given her statements during the plea colloquy and the lack of credible evidence supporting her claims. The final judgment was entered in favor of the Commonwealth. View "Commonwealth v. Holland" on Justia Law

On November 10, 2014, a traffic accident occurred at the intersection of Wellington Road and Market Place Avenue involving vehicles driven by Sharon Elizabeth Furr and Janaia Spurlock. Tamara Al-Saray, a passenger in Spurlock's vehicle, suffered significant injuries, including a traumatic brain injury. Spurlock attempted a left turn with a solid green light, requiring her to yield to oncoming traffic. Furr, traveling westbound at the speed limit, collided with Spurlock's vehicle. Al-Saray filed claims against both drivers for negligence but later nonsuited her claims against Spurlock. The trial court excluded evidence of Spurlock's guilty plea for failure to yield.The Prince William County Circuit Court denied Furr's motions to strike the evidence and for reconsideration, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the claim that Furr failed to maintain a proper lookout. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Al-Saray, awarding her $7,000,000 in damages. Furr appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that the evidence was insufficient to establish Furr's negligence as a proximate cause of the accident. The Court of Appeals majority found that the evidence was purely circumstantial and did not exclude other possible causes of the accident.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to Al-Saray, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The Court emphasized that proximate cause can be established by circumstantial evidence and that the jury's inference of Furr's negligence was reasonable. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to address Furr's remaining assignments of cross-error. View "Al-Saray v. Furr" on Justia Law

In 2017, John Cridler-Smith was convicted of possession with intent to distribute more than five pounds of marijuana. The case began when a postal worker in Loudoun County, Virginia, noticed a suspicious parcel from California, a known source state for marijuana trafficking. Law enforcement obtained a search warrant and found over six pounds of marijuana in the parcel. A controlled delivery was conducted to Cridler-Smith’s brother’s residence, where Cridler-Smith was later seen. Inside the residence, officers found drug paraphernalia and another parcel containing marijuana. Cridler-Smith admitted to shipping the marijuana during an interview with Detective Chris Staub.The Loudoun County Circuit Court denied Cridler-Smith’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. Cridler-Smith argued that his pre-trial counsel advised him to cooperate with law enforcement without adequate investigation and that his trial counsel failed to move to suppress his incriminating statements. The circuit court found that counsel’s advice was tailored to Cridler-Smith’s objectives of protecting his brother and minimizing jail time. The court initially found that Cridler-Smith had stated a claim regarding the failure to suppress his confession but later dismissed the claim upon reconsideration.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case and found that counsel’s initial advice regarding cooperation was reasonable given Cridler-Smith’s stated objectives. However, the court determined that the failure to seek suppression of Cridler-Smith’s confession might constitute ineffective assistance. The court noted that the applicability of Rule 3A:8(c)(6) to the confession required resolution of a factual question that the circuit court did not definitively address. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to resolve whether the statements were made in connection with an offer to plead guilty. View "Cridler-Smith v. Clarke" on Justia Law

Father Constantine P. Rogakos, an 86-year-old retired Greek-Orthodox priest, visited Bon Secours-DePaul Medical Center for an outpatient abdominal ultrasound. He used a cane due to a shuffled gait and had a history of falls. At the hospital, he was provided a wheelchair to reach the waiting room. In the ultrasound room, he was instructed to change into a medical gown. While changing, he leaned on a wheeled hospital stretcher, which moved, causing him to fall and sustain severe injuries. He later died from these injuries.The Administrator of his estate filed a wrongful death and survivorship action against the hospital, alleging negligence by the sonographer, Joanna Regan, for failing to assist and ensure the stretcher's wheels were locked. The circuit court denied the hospital's motion to strike and refused to allow a hospital stretcher as a demonstrative exhibit. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $2,000,000. The hospital's post-trial motions were denied.The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the circuit court's decisions, including the admissibility of Father Rogakos' statements under the Dead Man’s Statute, the refusal to grant a multiple causes jury instruction, and the exclusion of the stretcher as a demonstrative exhibit. The hospital appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia.The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment. It held that the Dead Man’s Statute did not preclude the introduction of Father Rogakos' statements as they were conveyed by non-interested witnesses. The court also found no error in the circuit court's refusal to grant the multiple causes jury instruction, exclusion of the stretcher as a demonstrative exhibit, and denial of the hospital's motion to strike, as the evidence supported the jury's verdict. View "Bon Secours-DePaul Medical Center v. Rogakos-Russell" on Justia Law

On May 22, 2020, Officers Massie and Hubbard of the Lynchburg Police Department attempted to stop Tara Ann Baez for speeding. After a brief pursuit, Baez stopped her vehicle and was arrested for reckless driving and eluding law enforcement. Officer File arrived and conducted a canine sniff, leading to a search of Baez’s vehicle, where a glass smoking device was found. Officer File also found a folded piece of paper with a substance suspected to be narcotics in Baez’s pocket, which tested positive for cocaine.At trial, the Commonwealth sought to admit video footage from Officer File’s body-worn camera to establish the chain of custody for the drugs. Baez objected, arguing the video lacked foundation and violated the Confrontation Clause. The trial court overruled the objections, finding the video could be authenticated by Officer Massie’s testimony and did not contain hearsay. Baez was found guilty of possession of cocaine but not guilty of eluding. Her conviction was later set aside, and she was placed on probation, which she violated, leading to a finding of guilt and a suspended two-year sentence.The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the trial court’s decision, rejecting Baez’s arguments that the video was testimonial hearsay and lacked proper authentication. The court held that the video did not contain any conduct intended as an assertion and thus did not implicate the Confrontation Clause. It also found that Officer Massie’s testimony provided a sufficient basis to authenticate the video.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case and agreed with the lower courts. It held that the video did not contain hearsay and was properly authenticated, affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "Baez v. Commonwealth of Virginia" on Justia Law

Patrick Austin Carolino was convicted of strangulation after a bench trial. The incident involved Carolino and his then-girlfriend, Hannah Ford, who testified that Carolino choked her during an argument, causing her to experience difficulty breathing and other symptoms. Ford did not immediately report the incident to the police but did so a month later. Evidence included photographs of Ford's injuries and testimony from a nurse examiner and other witnesses.The trial court admitted photographs of bruises on Ford's buttocks from a previous incident where Carolino allegedly whipped her with a belt. Carolino objected to this evidence, arguing it was irrelevant, constituted prior bad acts, and was beyond the scope of direct examination. The trial court overruled these objections and admitted the evidence, which it referenced in its ruling to convict Carolino.The Court of Appeals of Virginia, sitting en banc, reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court erred in admitting the belt-whipping evidence solely to attack Carolino’s credibility, violating the precedent set in McGowan v. Commonwealth. The majority found that the evidence was used improperly for impeachment on a collateral matter and that this error was not harmless.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case and determined that Carolino did not preserve his argument regarding improper impeachment on a collateral matter at trial. The objections made at trial were limited to relevance, prior bad acts, and scope of direct examination, none of which specifically invoked the rule from McGowan. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, vacated its judgment, and reinstated Carolino’s conviction for strangulation. View "Commonwealth v. Carolino" on Justia Law

Junior Josephson was convicted of possession of heroin and fentanyl, as well as petit larceny. He received suspended sentences for the drug offenses and 90 days to serve on the larceny charge, with the condition that he comply with supervised probation for three years. Josephson appealed to the Court of Appeals. While the appeal was pending, the Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Josephson had absconded from probation and failed to stay in contact with his probation officer. The court issued a capias for his arrest, which remained outstanding at the time of the motion.The Court of Appeals dismissed Josephson’s appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, concluding that he forfeited his right to appellate review by absconding from probation. Josephson’s counsel filed a petition for rehearing, but the Court of Appeals denied it. Josephson then appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed whether the Court of Appeals properly applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The court held that an appellate court may consider factual developments that occur after the trial, such as a defendant becoming a fugitive, to determine whether to adjudicate the case. The court found that there was no genuine dispute about Josephson’s fugitive status, as he did not deny it. The court also held that the Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeal, as the fugitive disentitlement doctrine allows courts to dismiss appeals when a defendant is a fugitive, there is a nexus between the appeal and the fugitive status, and dismissal is necessary to effectuate the policy concerns underlying the doctrine.The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, upholding the dismissal of Josephson’s appeal. View "Josephson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In 2003, Stanley Edward Johnson-Bey was convicted of a drug offense and received a suspended sentence. Over the next seventeen years, he repeatedly violated the conditions of his probation and suspended sentence, leading to multiple revocations and resuspensions. In 2022, following his fifth violation, the sentencing court imposed a portion of his remaining suspended sentence. Johnson-Bey appealed, arguing that a 2021 amendment to Code § 19.2-306(A) stripped the court of jurisdiction to enter the revocation order.The circuit court conducted a revocation hearing in May 2022 and found that Johnson-Bey had violated the conditions of his suspended sentence. The court rejected his argument regarding the 2021 amendment, agreeing with the Commonwealth that the amendment did not retroactively apply to his 2003 conviction or subsequent revocation orders. Johnson-Bey appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that the 2021 amendment operated prospectively and did not affect sentencing orders entered before July 2021.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case and upheld the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the 2021 amendments to Code §§ 19.2-303.1 and 19.2-306 did not retroactively apply to Johnson-Bey's 2003 conviction or any subsequent revocation orders. The court emphasized the presumption against retroactive legislation and concluded that the amendments did not limit the court's sentencing options at the May 2022 revocation hearing. The court also rejected Johnson-Bey's argument that the amendments should be applied prospectively to withdraw the court's jurisdiction, finding that the changes were substantive rather than procedural. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, maintaining the validity of the 2022 revocation order. View "Johnson-Bey v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The case involves Dilliraj Bista, who was accused of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old child, R.P., who has autism spectrum disorder. Bista, a close family friend, stayed with R.P.'s family in Fairfax County, Virginia, during which the assault occurred. R.P.'s mother discovered Bista in a compromising position with R.P. and, upon questioning, R.P. described the assault in detail. Bista initially denied but later admitted to some misconduct. The incident was reported to the police months later, leading to a forensic interview where R.P. provided a detailed account of the assault.The Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court of Fairfax County held a preliminary hearing where R.P. testified, and Bista cross-examined her. The court certified the charges, and Bista was indicted. The Circuit Court of Fairfax County admitted R.P.'s out-of-court statements under Code § 19.2-268.3, finding them inherently trustworthy despite inconsistencies. The court also found R.P. incompetent to testify at trial due to her inability to understand the difference between truth and falsehood. Bista was convicted of forcible sodomy and aggravated sexual battery but acquitted of rape. His post-conviction motion to set aside the verdict was denied.The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the convictions, concluding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting R.P.'s statements and that Bista had a sufficient opportunity to cross-examine R.P. at the preliminary hearing. The court held that R.P.'s statements were inherently trustworthy and corroborated by other evidence, including Bista's admission and DNA evidence. The court also found that Bista's cross-examination at the preliminary hearing was constitutionally adequate, addressing the same allegations of sexual abuse.The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, agreeing that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion and that Bista's constitutional rights were not violated. View "Bista v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law