The case involved an appeal by Key Risk Insurance Company from a Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission award of death benefits to Josephine Crews, the widow and sole dependent of James Crews, a self-employed sole proprietor who died in a 2009 work-related motor vehicle accident while delivering a prefabricated home. The Court of Appeals reversed the commission’s decision to award benefits at the statutory minimum weekly rate of $223.75. The court held that the record contained no evidence of any actual wages or earnings by the decedent during the fifty-two weeks before his death, as his business had operated at a loss, his weekly draws were treated as loans rather than compensation, and tax returns and accounting testimony confirmed zero reportable wage income. Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, average weekly wage must be based on proven earnings or amounts the employee would have earned but for the injury or death, which was not shown here.
The Daily Press, Inc. and reporter Ashley Kelly appealed a circuit court order that removed original photographs and an autopsy report—admitted as exhibits in Lillian Callender’s criminal trial for second-degree murder and felony child neglect—from the public court file and placed photocopies under seal to protect the due-process rights of her co-defendant, whose trial was still pending. The Court of Appeals of Virginia held that the sealing order violated the First Amendment, Article I, Section 12 of the Virginia Constitution, and Code § 17.1-208. The court reasoned that the trial judge failed to make the specific factual findings required by Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court to overcome the presumption of public access, did not evaluate whether less restrictive alternatives existed, and therefore abused its discretion in restricting inspection of the judicial records.
In Bellamy v. Commonwealth, the defendant was convicted of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon after Norfolk police recovered a bullet during a search incident to arrest. The arrest was based on a police dispatcher's report of an outstanding warrant, which later proved to have already been served. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the conviction and the denial of the motion to suppress. It held that the officer acted in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance on the dispatch information under Herring v. United States, and that the exclusionary rule does not apply without evidence of systemic police error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements.
In this case, a 15-year-old juvenile (D.L.G.) was adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court for attempting to poison his mother’s tea with intent to kill or injure her, in violation of Code § 18.2-54.1. After appealing to circuit court for de novo review, he moved for a psychiatric evaluation to support an insanity defense and argued that denying juveniles this option violated equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the motion. The court reasoned that Virginia law allows juveniles age 14 or older to elect in writing, under Code § 16.1-270, to waive juvenile court jurisdiction and be tried as adults, which would grant them the statutory right to assert insanity under Code § 19.2-168; by choosing to remain in the juvenile system, the appellant declined that option and thus was not treated differently from adults. The opinion noted that the juvenile system’s rehabilitative focus carries both advantages and limitations that a competent juvenile accepts by not transferring.
The case involved William Breit’s petition to establish legal parentage of L.F., a child conceived through in vitro fertilization using his sperm after he and the child’s biological and gestational mother, Beverley Mason, had lived together in a long-term unmarried relationship and jointly sought fertility treatment. The trial court sustained the mother’s and child’s pleas in bar, ruling that Virginia’s assisted conception statutes (Code §§ 20-156 to -165) barred Breit, as a sperm donor, from asserting paternity because the couple had never married. The Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, holding that the statutes did not apply to bar the claim under these facts, and also reversed the appointment of the mother’s attorney as the child’s guardian ad litem, while affirming the denial of Breit’s request for attorney’s fees. The court remanded for further proceedings on the parentage petition with a new guardian ad litem to be appointed.
Michael D. Wills and Todd Solomon appealed a Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) decision granting permits to Dirk Sanford and Charles Gregory to place pound nets in the Chesapeake Bay near the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel and Lynnhaven Inlet, claiming the decision was arbitrary, violated permitting statutes and the public trust doctrine, and would interfere with their recreational use of the area. The Circuit Court of Virginia Beach dismissed their petition after finding they lacked standing, as they had not alleged facts showing they were personally aggrieved by the permits. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under the Administrative Process Act and applicable precedent, standing requires an immediate, pecuniary, and substantial interest distinct from the general public; the appellants’ asserted recreational interests were shared with other boaters, swimmers, and fishers and therefore insufficient to confer standing.