Appellant was present at robbery

Where appellant was convicted under Code § 46.2-894 with leaving the scene of an accident, the conviction is affirmed because he drove 200 to 300 feet away instead of stopping “as close to the scene of the accident as possible without obstructing traffic,” as the statute requires.

Argument and authorities

“Owen contends that he did not leave the scene of the accident. After the accident, he proceeded to his driveway, which was nearby and within sight of the scene of the accident.

“Owen claimed that he moved his vehicle so that he could contact police from his home. When police arrived, he provided full details concerning his involvement.

“Because Owen remained in sight of the accident scene, he argues that the phrase ‘the scene of the accident’ in Code § 46.2-894 should be read as co-extensive with ‘the scene of the accident’ in Code § 19.2-81. …

“Owen was convicted under Code § 46.2-894, which provides: ‘The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident in which … an attended vehicle … is damaged shall immediately stop as close to the scene of the accident as possible without obstructing traffic.’

“In Smith v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 228, 234 (2000), this Court defined the meaning of ‘at the scene of the accident’ when making an arrest pursuant to Code § 19.2-81. This Court held that ‘[w]hether an arrest occurred at the scene of an accident . . . depends upon whether the relevant factors are linked by time and place.’ …

“Thus, an arrest ‘at the scene of the accident’ pursuant to Code § 19.2-81 can occur far away from the accident if linked temporally and lineally. …

“In Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 770 (2003) (en banc), this Court addressed the meaning of ‘at the scene of the accident ‘in Code § 46.2-894. We noted that Code § 46.2-894 ‘distinguishes and limits the area labeled “the scene” in a manner that Code § 19.2-81 does not.’ …

“We stated that ‘[t]he hit-and-run statute clearly requires drivers to stop as close to the accident, or point of impact, as safety will permit …Any other interpretation of the statute would make the word “immediately” meaningless and foil the intent of the statute.’ …

“Ultimately, we held that Edwards was not at the scene of the accident when she drove fifty to a hundred feet away.”

Application

In this case, “the trial court found that Owen drove 200-300 feet from the scene of the accident and parked his vehicle in his driveway. Owen did not check on the driver of the other vehicle nor exchange information with him.

“Additionally, Owen did not call 9-1-1 dispatch until thirty minutes after he arrived home. By that time, Trooper Lacks was already in route because Hatcher had pulled off the road and reported the accident.

“Nothing in the record suggests that stopping in his own driveway was an immediate stop or that his driveway was the first safe place to park the truck. The evidence in the record is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Owen failed to immediately stop at the scene of the accident.”

Affirmed.

Owen v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0419-21-2, April 26, 2022. CAV (Athey) from the Circuit Court of Halifax County (White) Joseph A. Sanzone for appellant. William K. Hamilton for appellee. VLW 022-7-103, 6 pp. Unpublished opinion.