Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Following a bench trial, the circuit court found Jerrod Quarles guilty of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in denying Quarles' motion to suppress where the police impermissibly reinitiated communication with Quarles after he invoked his right to counsel in violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment, and therefore, Quarles' subsequent waiver of his Miranda rights was not voluntary. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Quarles' motion to suppress where the police officer would not have known that Quarles was likely to respond to his statement and Quarles was not particularly susceptible to exposure to such statements. View "Commonwealth v. Quarles" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether a bail bondsman licensed in another state but not in Virginia had the authority to enter Virginia and apprehend a fugitive bailee. In a bench trial, Defendant, an out-of-state bail bondsman, was convicted of attempted abduction and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the General Assembly plainly manifested its intent to abrogate the common law rule allowing out-of-state bail bondsmen and bounty hunters to enter Virginia to apprehend fugitive bailees; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to establish the specific intent necessary to support a conviction of attempted abduction. View "Collins v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In this action, the trial court granted summary judgment against a locality, holding it liable to landowners under the State Water Control Law, Va. Code Ann. 62.1-44.2 through -44.34:28, in particular Code 62.1-44.34:18(C) of the Oil Discharge Law, for the contamination of groundwater by leachate and landfill gas. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court erred in awarding summary judgment to the landowners and finding the locality liable under the Oil Discharge Law, as the Oil Discharge Law does not apply to the passive, gradual seepage of leachate and landfill gas into groundwater. View "Campbell County v. Royal" on Justia Law

At a bench trial, the circuit court found Curtis Branham guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The court of appeals affirmed. Branham appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress the Commonwealth's evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Branham's motion to suppress where the arresting officer's search of Branham's person and vehicle and the results of those searches were not fruits of an unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and (2) the circuit court did not err in admitting the certificate of analysis of the cocaine into evidence where the chain of custody evidence was sufficient. View "Branham v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Smith for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Two days later, Smith applied for the purchase of a semi-automatic pistol. Smith answered that he was not under indictment for a felony on the form prepared by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the United States Department of Justice (the ATF form). The record contained no evidence that Smith, when executing the ATF form, was aware that the grand jury had returned an indictment against him. Smith was indicted for making a false statement on a firearm purchase form, and the circuit court ultimately found Smith guilty. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, vacated the conviction, and dismissed the indictment, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of "willfully and intentionally making a materially false statement" on a form executed in connection with the purchase of a firearm because there was no evidence to support a finding that Smith knew that he had been indicted when he signed the ATF form. View "Smith v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) entered into an agreement, pursuant to the Rail Enhancement Fund created by Va. Code Ann. 33.1-221.1:1.1, to grant funds to Norfolk Southern Railway Company (Norfolk Southern) for the development of an intermodal terminal in Montgomery County. Appellant, Montgomery County, instituted on action against DRPT, DRPT's director, and the Commonwealth Transportation Board, claiming that section 33.1-221.1:1.1 and the agreement were unconstitutional pursuant to the state Constitution's internal improvements clause and credit clause, and sought to enjoin their administration. Norfolk Southern subsequently intervened as a defendant. The circuit court ruled in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 33.1-221.1:1.1, as applied in this case, did not violate either the internal improvements clause or the credit clause of the Constitution of Virginia. View "Montgomery County v. Va. Dep't of Rail & Pub. Transp." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Calvin Bowman was found guilty of robbery, abduction, and two counts of use of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The court of appeals and Supreme Court affirmed. Bowman subsequently filed petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Bowman's claim that the Commonwealth failed to correct false testimony of its witness was barred because this non-jurisdictional issue could have been raised at trial and on appeal; (2) evidence of the lack of Bowman's DNA on a piece of evidence did not prejudice him under the Strickland v. Washington standard; (3) the lack of evidence on a particular piece of clothing recovered from Bowman when he was arrested did not prejudice him under the Strickland standard; and (4) the introduction of evidence by Bowman's expert that confirmed the existence of his fingerprints at the scene of the crime but provided the opportunity for a different explanation did not prejudice him under the Strickland standard. View "Bowman v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant James Bevel was convicted in a jury trial for having sexual relations with his daughter. Bevel's counsel filed a notice of appeal, after which Bevel died. Counsel filed a motion to abate conviction ab initio, which the circuit court denied after finding that the Commonwealth had established good cause for not abating Bevel's conviction. The court of appeals affirmed. Later, the court of appeals entered an order in the merits appeal dismissing the appeal as moot. At issue was whether to abate a conviction ab initio when the defendant has died while his appeal was pending or to dismiss the appeal and leave the conviction intact. The Supreme Court (1) held that the question of whether a criminal conviction necessarily will abate upon the death of the defendant while an appeal is pending or whether there should be a good cause exception in that policy is appropriately decided by the legislature, not the courts; (2) vacated the judgment of the court of appeals applying the abatement doctrine; and (3) affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals in the merits appeal, under the specific facts of this case, holding that Bevel's death rendered the appeal of his conviction moot. View "Bevel v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant Jerry Anderson was found guilty of fellatio by force and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. The court of appeals denied his appeal. At issue was whether prior consistent statements made by the complaining witness were properly admitted in evidence to rehabilitate the witness after her impeachment by a prior inconsistent statement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in admitting the victim's prior consistent statements and any error by the circuit court in admitting parts of the prior consistent statements that were overly repetitious was harmless under the circumstances; and (2) Defendant had a fair trial on the merits and substantial justice was reached. View "Anderson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

A jury found Dustin Turner guilty of abduction with intent to defile and first-degree felony murder. Billy Brown, the other person implicated in the crime, later confessed in a signed affidavit that he alone killed the victim. Based on this recantation, Turner filed a petition for a writ of actual innocence based on non-biological evidence. After remanding the matter to the circuit court to further develop the facts, the court of appeals granted Turner's request for a writ of actual innocence and vacated his convictions. Subsequently, the court of appeals granted the Commonwealth's petition for a rehearing and dismissed Turner's petition for a writ of actual innocence. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in dismissing Turner's petition and in denying his request to vacate his convictions because Turner did not meet his evidentiary burden of providing that no rational trier of fact could find Turner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of abduction with intent to defile as nothing in Brown's recantation or the circuit court's factual findings had any bearing on the question presented in the petition. View "Turner v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law