Marvin Frederick Cole

The case involved a dispute in a divorce proceeding over whether loans totaling $39,500 that wife Nancy Kelker claimed to have borrowed from Dr. Nancy Troike for living expenses and a catalog business qualified as marital debts subject to equitable distribution. The commissioner in chancery recommended treating the debts as marital, but the trial court rejected that recommendation, and the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed. The court held that the commissioner provided only conclusions without documentary evidence or specific credibility findings based on witness demeanor, while the trial court articulated reasons supported by the record showing insufficient proof of the loans' existence and marital purpose. The appeals court emphasized that absent such observations or evidence, the trial court was not required to defer to the commissioner.

family law

In Bennett v. Commonwealth, the defendant was convicted in circuit court of driving under the influence of alcohol with two prior convictions within ten years, in violation of Code § 18.2-266, following an arrest after running a red light and failing to provide an adequate breath sample. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by declining to rule on whether the Commonwealth complied with the implied consent procedures under Code § 18.2-268.2 (instead treating it as a jury question) and by excluding testimony from an unavailable witness that had been given in district court. The Court of Appeals of Virginia, rehearing en banc, affirmed the conviction, holding that preliminary factual questions underlying the admissibility of evidence and compliance with statutory testing requirements are for the court to decide but that the trial court's handling of the issues did not require reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Arnold Ainley Wright, III appealing the revocation of his suspended sentence by the Chesterfield County Circuit Court. Wright had received a five-year suspended sentence in 1993, which was revoked and re-suspended in subsequent years, and in 1998 the court again revoked the sentence based on new criminal convictions. Wright argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the original suspension period had expired and could not be extended through revocation orders. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the revocation orders properly set new suspension periods and that statutes grant courts authority to extend suspension periods in revocation proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

Sherwood Charlton was convicted of use of a firearm in the commission of robbery after acting as an accessory before the fact by planning and facilitating a restaurant robbery by leaving a back door open, though he claimed he did not know a firearm would be used. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the conviction. The court held that under Code § 18.2-18, accessories before the fact are liable in all respects as principals for the intended crime and its natural and probable incidental consequences, such as the use of a firearm during a robbery, citing precedents like Carter v. Commonwealth that impose shared responsibility on co-actors regardless of personal knowledge or presence.

criminal lawguns

Kelley Ann Tibbs was convicted by a jury of robbery, abduction, and capital murder, with the capital murder charge based on a killing committed in the course of a robbery under Code § 18.2-31(4). The Court of Appeals of Virginia reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the capital murder conviction after denying a challenge to the robbery conviction. The majority held that the evidence established the necessary causal connection and common criminal design between the robbery and the murder. A dissent concluded that the evidence instead supported only the hypothesis that the murder was committed to cover up a prior beating, with the robbery as an afterthought, and thus failed to prove murder in the commission of robbery.

criminal law

The case involved James Easter's appeal of his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), third offense, under Virginia Code § 18.2-266. Easter argued that his conviction violated double jeopardy because an officer's failure to file a required incident report led to an improper seven-day administrative license suspension, and that the Commonwealth improperly amended the charge to a third offense on de novo appeal to circuit court after he had pled guilty to a second offense in general district court under a plea agreement. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the conviction, holding that the administrative suspension was civil and remedial rather than penal, so any procedural error did not implicate double jeopardy. It further ruled that acceptance of the guilty plea to the lesser offense did not constitute an acquittal of the greater offense, and that amending the charge on appeal returned the parties to their pre-plea positions without violating due process or double jeopardy protections.

criminal lawprocedure

In McGuire v. Commonwealth, the defendant was convicted in a bench trial of possessing cocaine after police stopped his vehicle based on a confidential informant's tip about a planned drug sale, observed a controlled buy days earlier, and later found small amounts of cocaine and marijuana in his apartment following his statements at the hospital. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the conviction, rejecting challenges to the denial of a motion to suppress evidence from the stop and searches, the admission of a certificate of analysis from a prior transaction to support the informant's reliability, and the sufficiency of the evidence. The court held that the officers had probable cause for the arrest and that the subsequent searches and statements were valid, that the certificate was properly admitted for a limited purpose at the suppression hearing, and that the defendant's admission combined with the recovered drugs proved possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jack Enic Clark, who was convicted by a jury of sodomy and statutory rape; two months before trial, he moved for disclosure of the complaining witness's prior medical records and an order requiring her to submit to an independent medical examination to challenge the prosecution's physical findings. The trial court denied the motion for an IME, holding that it lacked authority to compel the witness and that doing so would discourage reporting and prosecution of sexual offenses. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Virginia treated the question as one of first impression, reviewed federal and state precedents on compelled examinations of sexual-assault complainants, and noted varying approaches that weigh a defendant's due-process interests against witness privacy and the risk of harassment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Robert Lewis Clay's convictions for second-degree murder of his wife and use of a firearm in the commission of murder. Clay challenged the trial court's rulings that prevented cross-examination of two witnesses during a pretrial voir dire session outside the jury's presence, admitted those witnesses' testimony recounting the victim's statements about fearing her husband and planning to move, and excluded testimony from a deputy sheriff about Clay's post-shooting demeanor and cooperation. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the convictions, finding that constitutional objections to the voir dire ruling were not preserved, that the hearsay statements were admissible under the state-of-mind exception to show the victim's fear, and that any error in excluding the deputy's testimony was harmless because it was cumulative of other evidence. A dissent argued that the hearsay and exclusion errors were not harmless and warranted reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a thirteen-year-old juvenile who was adjudicated delinquent in circuit court for unlawful wounding after cutting another student with a knife during a fight. The circuit court denied the juvenile's motion for a state-funded psychiatric evaluation to support an insanity defense at the delinquency adjudication. The Court of Appeals reversed the adjudication, ruling that the right to assert an insanity defense is an essential element of due process and fair treatment in juvenile delinquency proceedings, just as it is in adult criminal trials, and remanded for consideration of the evaluation request under state law.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law

In Francis v. Francis, the wife appealed a final divorce decree entered by the Chesterfield County Circuit Court, arguing that the court violated due process and Rule 1:13 by providing notice of the decree's presentation only to her former attorney of record after she had terminated the relationship, and that it improperly dismissed her claims for spousal and child support without considering statutory factors or reserving rights. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the decree in full, holding that notice to the counsel of record satisfied procedural requirements even after the wife's letters to the court, that endorsement of the decree could be waived, and that the support issues were not preserved for appeal under Rule 5A:18. The court reasoned that the record showed compliance with notice rules and no basis to apply exceptions for unpreserved claims.

family lawprocedure

This case from the Virginia Court of Appeals concerns post-divorce child support calculations under statutory guidelines, specifically whether certain funds received by the father should count as gross income. The father appealed the trial court's rulings on motions to reconsider and its decisions to include both a $10,000 gift from his mother and proceeds from converting a life insurance policy in his income for support purposes. The court affirmed inclusion of the gift money as income but reversed inclusion of the insurance proceeds, reasoning that they constituted a nontaxable return of capital with no proven gain or increase in value, and that the mother bore but failed to meet the burden of showing any income portion. It remanded for recalculation of the support obligation based on the record evidence. The opinion also resolved related procedural disputes over the timing and scope of reconsideration motions.

family lawprocedure

In Luck v. Commonwealth, Michael Wayne Luck was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of murder, and robbery, and sentenced to sixty-eight years in prison. On appeal, Luck argued that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim's prior convictions for petit larceny and reckless handling of a firearm, which he sought to use to impeach the victim's credibility regarding statements about money in his wallet. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the convictions, holding that any error in excluding the prior convictions was harmless because the convictions were remote in time, other unchallenged evidence supported the victim's credibility and the amount of money involved, and separate evidence of the theft of the victim's truck after the shooting independently supported the robbery conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

In Brown v. Commonwealth, appellant Billy Joe Brown was convicted by a jury in Virginia Beach Circuit Court of first-degree murder, abduction, and attempted rape after he and a codefendant killed Jennifer Evans following their meeting at a hotel bar. Brown appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying relief related to two police officers' creation of a memorial scholarship fund for the victim, by refusing to declare a mistrial or dismiss the jury panel after reports of pretrial discussions of his guilt among prospective jurors, by denying challenges for cause to three jurors, and by refusing a change of venue due to pretrial publicity. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the convictions, holding that the officers' scholarship fund activities were personal rather than department-sponsored and did not prejudice the proceedings, that voir dire adequately identified and removed biased jurors despite some pretrial discussions, and that the extensive questioning of the venire produced an impartial panel without demonstrating that publicity prevented a fair trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In Gray v. Commonwealth, the defendant was tried on charges including murder and use of a firearm in the commission of murder; the jury convicted him of involuntary manslaughter and the firearm offense despite the inconsistency. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred during the sentencing phase by refusing to instruct the jury that acquittal of murder required acquittal on the firearm charge. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the requested instruction was inapplicable because, under Virginia's bifurcated trial statute, the jury had already resolved guilt and innocence in the first phase and could not revisit those findings while deliberating on punishment. The court reasoned that the instruction would improperly invite reconsideration of issues conclusively determined earlier, and any comments by the trial judge suggesting otherwise caused no harm since the jury did not alter its verdicts.

criminal lawprocedure

Yard Bird, Inc. appealed a Virginia Employment Commission ruling that its exotic dancers were employees rather than independent contractors, meaning Yard Bird was required to pay unemployment taxes on their earnings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the determination that the dancers were employees but reversed the circuit court's finding that they were free from Yard Bird's control. The court applied Virginia Code § 60.2-212 and concluded that Yard Bird exercised direction through scheduling, ABC compliance enforcement, and other operational rules, while the dancers lacked independently established businesses due to inconsistent business licensing and limited evidence of external work treated as independent. The court also held that an IRS safe harbor exemption was not binding on the state commission.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatorytaxes

In Coleman v. Commonwealth, the defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine after the trial court admitted a certificate of analysis over his objection that the Commonwealth had failed to mail or deliver a copy as required by Code § 19.2-187. The defendant had included a request for the certificate in his discovery motion, but both parties endorsed a discovery order directing that all discovery occur at the Commonwealth's attorney's office with advance notice, and the defendant never appeared or made a separate direct request to the clerk or prosecutor under the statute. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the conviction, holding that by endorsing the order without objection the defendant agreed to its terms for all discovery matters, including the certificate request, and his failure to follow the ordered procedure waived any claim under the statute.

criminal lawprocedure

In Forbes v. Commonwealth, the defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after his vehicle struck another car at a stop sign, resulting in the victim's death, which the prosecution attributed to a possible diabetic blackout. The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the conviction, finding the evidence insufficient to establish the wanton or reckless conduct required for involuntary manslaughter. The court reasoned that Forbes had taken precautionary measures by eating mints and drinking orange juice when feeling woozy, had experienced few prior blackouts, was not advised against driving by his physician, and lacked awareness of his low blood sugar symptoms, meaning his actions did not demonstrate a reckless disregard for human life.

criminal law

The case involved Carla Jean Ohree, who was convicted in a bench trial of two counts of grand larceny by welfare fraud after being indicted for overpayments received under public assistance programs. Ohree, an indigent defendant, had sought to waive jury and appointed counsel fees in advance, arguing that the prospect of recoupment costs upon conviction unconstitutionally burdened her rights to a jury trial and due process under the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions, and that her subsequent waiver of a jury trial was therefore involuntary. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the convictions, holding that no jury costs were actually assessed because Ohree elected a bench trial, that standard statutory costs upon conviction do not violate constitutional protections in the absence of an improper chilling effect, and that the fees at issue were permissible recoupments not requiring a preliminary ability-to-pay determination. The majority reasoned that the applicable statutes and precedents permitted assessment of prosecution costs without rendering the jury right illusory, and that Ohree's waiver was valid on the record presented.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Rodney Winfield, who was incarcerated for murdering the mother of his two young children, and the petition by the children's aunt and uncle, the Urquharts, to adopt them after gaining custody. Winfield withheld consent to the adoption, leading the trial court to determine whether his consent was unreasonably withheld against the children's best interests. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the trial court's decision granting the adoption, finding that Winfield had no meaningful prior relationship with the children, was serving a lengthy prison sentence with uncertain release, and that the Urquharts had become the children's psychological parents providing stability. The court reasoned that adoption would serve the children's best interests by offering legal certainty and emotional security, supported by expert testimony and evidence of the children's well-being under the Urquharts' care.

family law