Home / Uncategorized (page 42)

Uncategorized

Feed Subscription

HURT v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err by denying appellant?s motion to strike the evidence; evidence was sufficient to support appellant?s conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute

Read More »

HELEN ELAINE MASON v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding that each photograph of the child could support a separate conviction of the pornography offense and in denying appellant?s proposed jury instruction; evidence was sufficient to support appellant?s convictions of taking indecent liberties with a child; appellant?s convictions are affirmed

Read More »

BODINE v. COMMONWEALTH

Appellant?s convictions for possession of child pornography are affirmed as appellant?s prosecution under Code Section 18.2-374.1:1 did not violate his constitutional right to be free from ex post facto punishment

Read More »

POPE v. COMMONWEALTH

This Court cannot consider appellant?s argument that the trial court erred by entering the jury room, without counsel or a court reporter, to answer a question posed during sentencing as appellant did not properly preserve the issue for appeal and the ends-of-justice exception does not apply; appellant?s convictions are affirmed

Read More »

COLEMAN v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence sufficient to support appellant?s convictions of eight counts of attempted malicious wounding and eight counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony

Read More »

BARNES v. COMMONWEALTH

Judgment of the trial court affirmed as the trial court did not improperly enhance appellant?s sentence nor did it violate the rule of law expressed in Apprendi or Blakely

Read More »

CALVIN DEAN COLEMAN, II v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding the evidence sufficient to support appellant?s convictions of eight counts of attempted malicious wounding and eight counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony

Read More »

MASON v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in finding that each photograph of the child could support a separate conviction of the pornography offense and in denying appellant?s proposed jury instruction; evidence was sufficient to support appellant?s convictions of taking indecent liberties with a child; appellant?s convictions are affirmed

Read More »

JOYCE v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court?s revocation of appellant?s April 11, 2003 suspensions and imposition of the unserved portions of the original sentences is affirmed; trial court?s revocation of appellant?s February 13, 2004 suspensions is reversed and this matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to reinstate those suspensions; judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

Read More »

LADONNA LOU JOYCE v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court?s revocation of appellant?s April 11, 2003 suspensions and imposition of the unserved portions of the original sentences is affirmed; trial court?s revocation of appellant?s February 13, 2004 suspensions is reversed and this matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to reinstate those suspensions; judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

Read More »

MITCHELL v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err in admitting the certificate of analysis as the Commonwealth proved that the evidence the lab tested was the same evidence recovered from appellant?s person

Read More »

MCCALLUM v. SALAZAR

Trial court erred in dismissing appellant?s amended petition to vacate an adoption order on the ground that Code Section 63.2-1216 barred claims filed more than six months after discovery of the alleged fraud; judgment reversed and case remanded to the trial court

Read More »

VERNON LEO POPE, JR. v. COMMONWEALTH (122068)

This Court cannot consider appellant?s argument that the trial court erred by entering the jury room, without counsel or a court reporter, to answer a question posed during sentencing as appellant did not properly preserve the issue for appeal and the ends-of-justice exception does not apply; appellant?s convictions are affirmed

Read More »

WRIGHT v. COMMONWEALTH

Trial court did not err by imposing a three-year period of post-release supervision; trial court correctly applied Code Sections 18.2-10 and 19.2-295.2; judgment of the trial court affirmed

Read More »

GUNN v. COMMONWEALTH

The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding a conviction under Code § 18.2-112 is affirmed, where the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant, a public school teacher, had possession of funds that came into her custody by virtue of her official position as an employee of a city school system and that she knowingly misused or misappropriated these funds to her own use.

Read More »

TRONFELD v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

In a defamation action by an attorney against an insurance company and its employee, the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer asserting that the statements sued upon were opinion that could not form the basis for a cause of action. The defamatory statements alleged had a provably false factual connotation, and could prejudice plaintiff in his profession, thus supporting an action for defamation. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

GREEN v. VIRGINIA STATE BAR

In remanded proceedings concerning imposition of an appropriate sanction for an attorney's violation of Rules 1.3(a) and 8.4(b) of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board did not err in conducting the proceedings via telephonic conference call, but abused its discretion in refusing to admit certain evidence in mitigation that the attorney sought to introduce pursuant to Part 6, § IV, Para. 13(I)(2)(f)(2) of the Rules of Court. The sanction order is reversed, the sanction is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings to consider and impose an appropriate sanction.

Read More »

BAKER v. POOLSERVICE COMPANY

In a wrongful death action, the trial court did not err in sustaining a swimming pool service company's demurrer because plaintiff alleged duties that are not recognized in Virginia law. Similarly, there was no error in granting a pool products manufacturer's plea in bar because the action was filed after the expiration of the five-year period of repose applicable to ordinary building materials under Code § 8.01-250. The judgments dismissing the claims against both parties are affirmed.

Read More »

COLLINS v. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK

In an action against a bank by designated beneficiaries of accounts set up by other persons as part of a fraudulent investment scheme, because the beneficiaries had not contracted with the bank and had no signatory authority over the accounts, the plaintiffs were not ?customers? of the bank as defined by the Uniform Commercial Code, Code § 8.4-104(a)(5), and the bank had not assumed duties to protect their interests. The judgment dismissing their claims is affirmed.

Read More »

WORKMAN v. COMMONWEALTH

In a murder and firearms prosecution, certain evidence discovered by the defendant after trial and before sentencing was exculpatory in nature and should have been disclosed by the Commonwealth prior to trial. The trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in denying a new trial because of Brady violations. The judgment of the Court of Appeals and the trial court is reversed, and the voluntary manslaughter conviction is reversed. The case is remanded for retrial if the Commonwealth be so advised for an offense no greater than voluntary manslaughter.

Read More »

MORRIS v. COMMONWEALTH

In a prosecution for felonious child neglect in violation of Code § 18.2-371.1(B), as a matter of law the accused mother's conduct was not a willful act or omission in the care of her children that was so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for their lives. Therefore, the evidence was insufficient to sustain her convictions. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the charges are dismissed.

Read More »

JOHNSON v. DEBUSK FARM, INC.

The trial court did not err in finding the existence of a prescriptive easement across real property, and in finding that the owner of the servient tract had notice of such easement when she purchased the tract. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

CASTLE v. LESTER

In a medical-malpractice claim arising from the birth of a neurologically impaired child, the defendant doctor's argument for overruling prior settled law is rejected. Thus the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that injury to an unborn child is physical injury to the mother, or in admitting evidence on the mother?s claim for damages for mental suffering due to the birth of her impaired son, including the nature of the child?s injuries, his daily care needs and life expectancy, as well as the mother?s depression and loss of income. Denial of a mistrial after inadvertent improper testimony was not an abuse of discretion. The judgment is affirmed.

Read More »

1924 LEONARD ROAD v. VAN ROEKEL

In suits for partition of residential property and imposition of a resulting trust, the circuit court erred in certain evidentiary rulings but not in others. Issues involving the hearsay rule and Virginia's "Dead Man's Statute," Code § 8.01-397, the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the admission of testimony relating to the intent of contracting parties, application of the doctrines of estoppel by deed and laches, and the "second marriage" presumption are discussed. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the case is remanded for a new trial.

Read More »

GILLESPIE v. COMMONWEALTH

In the bifurcated sentencing proceeding of a non-capital felony, the trial court erred in failing to redact sentencing information from the defendant's record of convictions. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded.

Read More »

JONES v. COMMONWEALTH

In a prosecution for felony child neglect in violation of Code § 18.2-371.1(B)(1), the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendant willfully failed to provide care for her child in a manner so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for the child?s life, where the defendant routinely sold illegal drugs out of her apartment, permitted her unattended child access to those drugs, and exposed him to the dangers inherent in the drug trade. The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the conviction is affirmed.

Read More »

BETHEL INVESTMENT CO. v. CITY OF HAMPTON

In an inverse condemnation and property damage action, the defendant city failed to carry its burden of proof on affirmative defenses based on Code § 8.01-222 and the applicable statutes of limitations, and the trial court erred in failing to accord plaintiff a jury hearing on the issue of when its claims accrued and in ruling that its claims were barred. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for trial, but on remand, defendant is not entitled to relitigate its claim that the plaintiff's claims accrued more than five years prior to the filing of the motion for judgment.

Read More »

DIMAIO v. COMMONWEALTH

In considering a former corporate employee's convictions for computer fraud in violation of Code § 18.2-152.3 and larceny in violation of Code § 18.2-111 based on unauthorized removal of employee data files, custom document forms and templates, and signed covenants not to compete, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence of the value of the files, forms and signed documents to support the convictions. The defendant's convictions are affirmed.

Read More »

UNINSURED EMPLOYER'S FUND v. GABRIEL

In a claim for workers' compensation benefits, the Court of Appeals erred in its judgment that the Workers? Compensation Commission had jurisdiction over this case in light of the number of employees in the company involved. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed in part and vacated in part, and final judgment is entered for the Uninsured Employer's Fund.

Read More »

PARSON v. CARROLL

In a defamation case, the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendant where the material factual allegations of plaintiff's motion for judgment remained in dispute. Plaintiff did not, by entering an Alford plea to criminal charges arising out of the allegedly defamatory statements, make any concessions of fact which, through application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel, raised a legal bar to his action. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Read More »

WALKER v. COMMONWEALTH

The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for abduction in violation of Code § 18.2-47 and use of a firearm in the commission of abduction in violation of Code § 18.2-53.1, where the defendant used a firearm to detain and disarm an automobile repossessor who had begun to tow one of his vehicles away. Since the defendant was acquitted of robbery charges stemming from this incident, the "incidental detention doctrine" does not apply. The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the convictions is affirmed.

Read More »

HALEY v. HALEY

In elective share litigation pursued by the surviving spouse of a Virginia decedent, the trial court did not err in finding that the spouse failed to strictly comply with the requirements of Code § 64.1-13 by filing a properly acknowledged claim for an elective share of her deceased husband?s estate. A subsequent attempt to file a properly acknowledged claim was outside the six-month time period required by the Code and therefore also failed as a matter of law. The judgment of the trial court sustaining a demurrer to her claim is affirmed.

Read More »

MOORE v. COMMONWEALTH

In a drug prosecution, violation of the requirement under Code § 19.2-74 that police issue a summons to a person detained for a Class 1 misdemeanor and forthwith release him from custody upon his promise to appear at a specified time and place, rendered the fruits of a later search of the individual unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment forbids expansion of the search incident to arrest doctrine to include a search incident to citation. The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding his conviction is reversed and the charges are dismissed.

Read More »
Scroll To Top