George Steven Agee

The case concerned Jeremy Jaynes's convictions under Virginia Code § 18.2-152.3:1 for sending over 10,000 unsolicited bulk emails per day with falsified routing information to AOL subscribers from his home in North Carolina. The trial court denied motions challenging jurisdiction, the dormant Commerce Clause, vagueness, and the First Amendment, and a jury found him guilty on three counts, resulting in a nine-year sentence. On appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad on its face because it criminalized the anonymous sending of all unsolicited bulk emails, including those containing political, religious, or other protected speech. The court rejected a proposed narrowing construction as an impermissible rewriting of the statute and therefore reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and vacated the convictions.

criminal lawfree speech

This case involved a dispute over custody of a minor child, BC, after the Lynchburg Division of Social Services removed her from her parents' home based on allegations of abuse, including claims of child pornography and neglect, leading to foster care proceedings and competing custody petitions from the parents and grandparents. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and circuit court awarded custody to the grandparents, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed, holding that the lower courts failed to apply the proper statutory standards under Code §§ 16.1-278.2 and related provisions for determining custody and under Code § 16.1-278.19 for attorney's fees, which requires consideration of the parties' relative financial abilities rather than a non-statutory reasonableness test. The court remanded the case for further proceedings applying those standards, while leaving temporary custody with the grandparents pending resolution.

family law

This case involved Thomas Alexander Porter's appeal of his capital murder conviction and death sentence from the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk. Porter was convicted by a jury of capital murder for fatally shooting a police officer during an encounter after an argument in an apartment, along with related firearm and larceny charges; the jury found the aggravating factor of future dangerousness and imposed a death sentence, which the trial court entered. On direct review under Virginia Code § 17.1-313, the Supreme Court of Virginia considered Porter's assignments of error regarding trial procedures, evidence, and sentencing issues but found no reversible error in the record or arguments. The court therefore affirmed the convictions and the sentence of death.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the Commonwealth of Virginia's petition to civilly commit Kenneth Edward Jackson as a sexually violent predator under the SVPA following his conviction for aggravated sexual battery. After a probable cause hearing, the circuit court dismissed the petition, concluding that the evidence, including conflicting expert opinions, did not establish probable cause. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the dismissal, holding that the circuit court properly acted within its role at the probable cause stage without improperly weighing evidence as a trier of fact.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a claim by Vickie Barker, the surviving spouse of a Pittsylvania County deputy sheriff who died of a heart attack while on duty in 2004, seeking death benefits and health insurance under the Virginia Line of Duty Act (Code §§ 9.1-400 et seq.). The Comptroller denied the claim, citing a pre-employment physical that noted hypertension and arguing that this barred the statutory presumption of occupational disease under Code § 65.2-402. The circuit court ruled in Barker's favor and awarded $75,000 plus benefits, but on appeal the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the presumption applied because the deputy died from heart disease, a condition separate from the noted hypertension, and that the Comptroller had not overcome the presumption. The Court therefore reversed the $75,000 award, entered judgment for the $25,000 amount available under former Code § 9.1-402(B), and affirmed the award of health insurance benefits under Code § 9.1-401.

labor & employment

The case involved homeowners in Newport News subdivisions who sued the city for inverse condemnation, alleging that the city's permitting of upstream development increased stormwater runoff into an undersized drainage system, causing repeated flooding of their properties, including severe damage during Hurricane Floyd in 1999. The circuit court sustained the city's demurrer, ruling that the complaint failed to state a claim and that Code § 8.01-187 provided the exclusive remedy for such takings claims against a municipality. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed, holding that Article I, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution is self-executing and creates a direct cause of action for inverse condemnation that is not superseded or limited by the statutory procedure. The court reasoned that the statute supplies an additional remedy rather than displacing the constitutional claim, as the General Assembly did not expressly indicate an intent to make it exclusive. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the takings claim.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Howard Z. Garnett, Jr.'s convictions by a jury in the Circuit Court of Madison County for felony abduction with intent to defile, assault and battery of a former household member, animate object penetration, and rape, based on allegations by Victoria Duff that Garnett abducted and sexually assaulted her in a barn on his farm in July 2003. Garnett appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the Commonwealth had withheld exculpatory evidence in the form of Duff's prior statements and that he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered records of their business dealings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions en banc, and the Supreme Court of Virginia also affirmed, holding that the statements were not material exculpatory evidence that the prosecution was required to disclose and that the business records were available before trial through due diligence, were merely collateral or corroborative, and would not have produced a different result at trial. The court applied standards from Brady v. Maryland and Commonwealth v. Tweed to reach these conclusions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jeremy Jaynes, who from North Carolina sent over 50,000 unsolicited bulk emails with falsified routing and header information to AOL subscribers in Virginia on three occasions, advertising various products, in violation of Code § 18.2-152.3:1 of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, which criminalizes such transmissions exceeding volume thresholds as a felony. Jaynes was convicted by a jury on three counts and sentenced to prison terms, and he appealed arguing that the statute violated the dormant Commerce Clause, was unconstitutionally vague, and infringed the First Amendment. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that Jaynes lacked standing to raise certain overbreadth or facial challenges because his conduct involved commercial speech that was neither truthful nor nonmisleading due to the falsifications, and that Virginia had jurisdiction as the emails directly impacted AOL servers located in the state.

criminal lawfree speech

The case involved Keith I. Glenn's appeal of his convictions for robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in a backpack during a search of his grandfather's home. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the convictions, ruling that the grandfather's consent to the search was valid and extended to the backpack. The court reasoned that the officers had an objectively reasonable belief that the grandfather had authority over the backpack, which showed no signs of exclusive ownership by Glenn, and that Glenn, who was present and directed officers to the room but did not object to the search, could not later challenge the consent under the principles from Georgia v. Randolph.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a foreclosure on Janet Simmons' property by Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, the servicer of a deed of trust securing a note. Simmons sued for breach of contract, alleging that Bayview failed to provide the required pre-acceleration notice of default under the deed of trust, which specified delivery or certified mail, and that this failure prevented the right to accelerate the debt and foreclose from accruing. Bayview contended that its February 2005 letter substantially complied with the deed and that the subsequent statutory notice of foreclosure sale under Code § 55-59.1(A) cured any defect. The circuit court found that Simmons had not received the letter and that Bayview failed to prove she had actual knowledge of it, awarding her damages of $156,809.46. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, holding that the deed of trust's condition precedent to acceleration was unmet, so the statutory notice could not validate the foreclosure.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Andrew Robert Alston, who was convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to three years of active incarceration. The circuit court also imposed a three-year term of postrelease supervision under Code § 19.2-295.2 in addition to the incarceration. Alston appealed, arguing that the postrelease supervision violated his Sixth Amendment rights under Apprendi and Blakely, the separation of powers, legislative intent, and other grounds. The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the judgment, holding that the statute plainly requires the supervision term in addition to incarceration and that no improper judicial fact-finding occurred beyond the jury's verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned two law firms that held retainer funds in trust accounts for a client facing Florida judgments domesticated in Virginia; after the client deposited over $280,000, the firms disbursed portions for legal fees both before and after a writ of fieri facias was delivered to the sheriff on October 7, 2005. The judgment creditor initiated garnishment proceedings against the firms, which remitted only the remaining balances as of the later dates when they and the client were served with the garnishment summonses. The circuit court held the firms liable for amounts disbursed after October 7, and the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, ruling that under Code § 8.01-501 the lien attached to the client's personal property in the accounts from the moment the writ was delivered to the sheriff. The court concluded that service requirements under Code § 8.01-502 did not delay the lien's effectiveness against the firms in this instance.

procedureproperty

The case involved appeals by attorney Walter Franklin Green, IV challenging suspensions of his law license by a three-judge panel and the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board for multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in representing clients in criminal and civil matters, including failures in filing appeals, communication, and handling fees. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed both the six-month suspension imposed by the panel and the additional 45-day suspension by the board. The court reasoned that the certification of charges was timely under the applicable rules, the procedural requirements were met, clear and convincing evidence supported the findings of misconduct, and the sanctions were appropriate without abuse of discretion.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved Gary Earl Neighbors, who was convicted in general district court after an Alford plea to resisting arrest and later sought to challenge his plea through a petition for a writ of coram nobis, claiming lack of capacity due to medication. The general district court denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and the circuit court refused to hear an appeal, ruling it lacked jurisdiction and that the writ was not the proper vehicle to challenge the plea. The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the circuit court did have jurisdiction to consider the appeal from the denial of the writ under applicable statutes. However, the court affirmed that a writ of coram vobis is limited to correcting clerical errors or certain errors of fact and cannot be used to collaterally attack a guilty plea based on claims of incapacity at the time of the plea. Therefore, the court reversed the circuit court's jurisdictional ruling but entered final judgment for the Commonwealth on the merits of the writ's availability.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Ran Nizan, guarantor of a defaulted commercial loan secured by apartment complexes, whom Wells Fargo (as trustee for the loan pool) sued for the deficiency after foreclosure. Nizan sought discovery into a confidential settlement Wells Fargo reached with UBS (the entity that had transferred the loan) to determine whether any portion of the settlement proceeds represented payment on the same loan damages Wells Fargo was seeking from him, which could support a defense against double recovery. The circuit court denied additional discovery, ruled the settlement could not reduce Nizan's liability as a matter of law, and entered judgment for Wells Fargo. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed and remanded, holding that Nizan was entitled to pursue discovery relevant to double recovery and that the defense turns on common damages rather than a requirement of common liability between the parties.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Mark Five Construction seeking indemnification from its subcontractor Castle Contractors under Virginia Code § 65.2-304 for workers' compensation benefits paid to an injured employee after a deputy commissioner initially denied the claim but the full Commission and Court of Appeals found Mark Five subject to the Act. The circuit court sustained Castle Contractors' demurrer to the amended motion for judgment. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, ruling that a party can only seek indemnification under the statute from a defendant who would have been liable to pay compensation under the Act and thus subject to its jurisdiction, which Castle Contractors was not because it had fewer than three employees regularly in service in Virginia.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved the capital murder convictions of Ricky Javon Gray for the killings of Bryan Harvey, Kathryn Harvey, Stella Harvey, and Ruby Harvey in Richmond, Virginia. Gray was indicted on multiple counts under Virginia's capital murder statutes, convicted by a jury in a bifurcated trial, and sentenced to death for two counts involving minor victims and life imprisonment for the others, based on the aggravating factor of vileness. The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case pursuant to statutory requirements and, after examining Gray's assignments of error and constitutional challenges to the death penalty statutes, found no reversible error and affirmed the convictions and death sentences, adhering to prior precedents on the issues raised.

criminal law

The case involved Demetrius D. Baldwin's conviction for attempted murder after he fled a traffic stop by accelerating his vehicle while a police officer stood near the driver's side rear of the car. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder. The court reasoned that Baldwin's actions were consistent with an attempt to escape rather than an intent to strike the officer, as the officer was positioned beside and behind the vehicle, Baldwin did not aim directly at him, and at most the car might have struck the officer's feet. This contrasted with prior cases where defendants deliberately directed vehicles toward officers. The court dismissed the attempted murder indictment while leaving the eluding police conviction unaffected.

criminal law

This case arose from two related lawsuits filed by PETA against Kenneth Feld and others alleging conspiracy and misappropriation of trade secrets, which were consolidated for trial but kept separate for discovery. The circuit court held attorney Joseph G. Petrosinelli in civil contempt and imposed monetary sanctions after he directed the issuance of a subpoena in the second case (PETA II) to depose a witness on the same date and time as a deposition already scheduled in the first case (PETA I). The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the contempt finding, holding that the prior orders denying consolidation of discovery and access to discovery materials in PETA I did not contain any express prohibition against issuing the subpoena in PETA II. The court reasoned that contempt requires an explicit command or prohibition in a written order, and any restriction here was at most implied from general statements during hearings.

procedure

The case involved the estate of a pedestrian struck and injured by a bus while crossing a street outside a crosswalk, who sued the transit company and driver for negligence. A jury returned a verdict awarding damages to the estate, but the trial court set aside the verdict and entered judgment for the defendants on the ground that the decedent was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. The Virginia Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence was conflicting on key facts such as whether the decedent looked for traffic, whether the bus was moving when he crossed, and the driver's attention, so that reasonable minds could differ on whether any negligence by the decedent was a proximate cause of the accident. The court concluded that the issue of contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury and reinstated the verdict in favor of the estate.

torts & liabilityprocedure