Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals upholding Appellant's conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant's conviction for felony homicide because felony hit and run may serve as a predicate offense for a felony homicide conviction.Appellant was charged with felony hit and run and felony homicide for a single incident. Counsel for Appellant moved to strike the felony homicide charge at the close of the Commonwealth's evidence, arguing that a hit and run in violation of Va. Code 46.2-894 was insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction of felony homicide. In response, the Commonwealth argued that a felony homicide was proper because the homicide was within the res gestae of the predicate hit and run. The trial court denied the motion to strike and found Appellant guilty of both charges. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Appellant committed the hit and run with malice sufficient to elevate the killing to second-degree murder and that the victim's death occurred within the res gestae of the underlying hit and run. View "Flanders v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals upholding the trial court's conviction of Defendant of attempted identity theft, holding that one can commit attempted identity theft under Va. Code 18.2-186.3 when using his or her own identifying information to obtain money.Defendant stole a check, made it payable to herself, and forged the account owner's signature. Using her own driver's license as identification, Defendant presented the check to a bank teller for cash but left the bank before completing the transaction. Defendant was subsequently convicted of attempted identity theft. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for attempted identity theft under section 18.2-186.3. View "Taylor v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court upholding Taxpayer's real estate assessments for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 for a property located in the City of Portsmouth and the attorney's fees charged to Taxpayer to collect the assessments, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Court held (1) Va. Code 58.1-3984(B) establishes the method for challenging real property assessments; (2) Taxpayer failed to establish that the assessment for the property deriving from a mass appraisal did not conform to generally accepted appraisal practices, procedures, rules and standards or applicable state law relating to valuation of property; and (3) the trial court acted within its discretion in concluding that the attorney's fees were reasonable. View "Portsmouth 2175 Elmhurst, LLC v. City of Portsmouth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court granting the motion to strike the evidence of Monica Cromartie's claims against Brian Billings, a former police officer, for an unlawful search based on Va. Code 19.2-59, for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and for false arrest under section 1983, holding that the circuit court erred by granting Billings' motion to strike the three claims based on sovereign immunity and qualified immunity.At the close of Cromartie's case-in-chief the circuit court granted Billings' motion to strike the section 1983 and section 19.2-59 claims on the grounds of qualified immunity and sovereign immunity, respectively. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Billings' search was performed contrary to well-established law and violated Cromartie's Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore, the circuit court erred by granting the motion to strike based on sovereign immunity for the section 19.2-59 claim for unlawful search; (2) the circuit court erred by striking the section 1983 claim for false arrest based upon qualified immunity; and (3) Billings' use of force was unreasonable under the circumstances, and therefore, the section 1983 excessive force claim failed both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis at the motion to strike stage. View "Cromartie v. Billings" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Joseph Corriveau's declaratory judgment action where Corriveau requested a determination that the uninsured motorist provision in his mother Tracey Ballagh's automobile insurance policy issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company provided coverage for his injuries arising from an assault that took place on his school bus, holding that no nexus existed between Corriveau’s injuries and the use of the school bus as a means of transportation.Corriveau, a special needs child, was abused while riding a school bus. The insurance policy in this case contained an uninsured motorist provision covering an insured's damages for bodily injuries that "arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use" of the uninsured motor vehicle. The circuit court granted summary judgment for State Farm, finding that there was no causal connection between Corriveau's injuries and the use of the school bus as a vehicle used to transport children to school. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that no causal connection existed between the assault and the employment of the school bus as a school bus. View "Corriveau v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court dismissing Plaintiff's wrongful-death action against the City of Petersburg alleging that the City failed to notify area residents that the infrastructure was not adequate to provide the required safe flow of water to area fire hydrants, resulting in the death of his son, holding that sovereign immunity barred Plaintiff's complaint.In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that his son died from smoke inhalation and thermal injuries during a fire at his Petersburg residence before firefighters could establish a sufficient water supply and remove him from the burning residence. The City filed a demurrer and plea in bar, asserting that because Plaintiff's claim arose from the City's governmental functions of operating a fire department and supplying water for fire protection, sovereign immunity barred Plaintiff's suit. The circuit court granted the demurrer and plea in bar and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Plaintiff's complaint alleged negligence arising from the City's immune governmental function of providing and maintaining fire hydrants the trial court properly granted the City's demurrer and plea in bar of sovereign immunity. View "Massenburg v. City of Petersburg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for driving after forfeiture of her license, third offense in ten years, holding that the court of appeals did not err in finding that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction.On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove that she had had actual notice that her license was revoked on the date of the instant offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based on the evidence, a rational fact-finder could reasonably infer that Defendant was driving without any "legal right to do so," and therefore, the court of appeals did not err in finding the evidence sufficient to support Defendant's conviction. View "Yoder v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals upholding Defendant's conviction of second degree murder, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the murder conviction.On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish malice because his actions were not intentionally committed toward the victim. The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that a rational trier of fact could have found that Appellant was attempting to shoot a specific person when he fired a deadly weapon multiple times. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence of Defendant's actions implied sufficient malice even though Defendant did not target another with his actions. View "Watson-Scott v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of first-degree murder, robbery, and related offenses, holding that the trial court did not err by excluding expert testimony regarding eyewitness confidence and unconscious transference and did not err in refusing Defendant's proffered jury instruction on eyewitness identification testimony.Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial court in this case did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony concerning eyewitness confidence and excluding as irrelevant the testimony regarding unconscious transference; and (2) in light of the totality of the record, the trial court did not err by refusing the jury instruction regarding eyewitness identifications. View "Watson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of forcible sodomy and aggravated sexual battery, holding that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury.In its published opinion the court of appeals refused Defendant's assignment of error challenging the sufficiency of the evidence but considered the assignment of error regarding whether the trial court erred in giving jury instruction that combined the alternative theories of force, the victim's mental incapacity or physical helplessness as the means by which the sexual acts were committed against the victim's will. The court of appeals held that the trial court correctly instructed the jury because the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Defendant committed both crimes against the victim's will by each of the means contained in the instructions - force, the victim's physical helplessness, or her mental incapacity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the analysis, reasoning and holdings of the court of appeals were correct. View "Davison v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law