Archibald C. Buchanan

The case involved Allen Carroll Pruitt, who had prior convictions for robbery and murder committed as a juvenile voided in habeas corpus proceedings due to the absence of his parents or a guardian ad litem at the original juvenile hearing. Pruitt petitioned for a writ of prohibition to bar his retrial as an adult in the Corporation Court of the City of Norfolk, claiming it would violate his statutory and constitutional rights. The court denied the writ, reasoning that Pruitt had reached the age of majority and could no longer be tried as a juvenile, so the Commonwealth could proceed against him on new indictments using adult criminal procedures, consistent with prior Virginia precedents and Kent v. United States.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether a parent, as administrator of a stillborn child's estate, could recover damages under Virginia's wrongful death statute for injuries from a car accident allegedly caused by the defendants' negligence, which resulted in the viable fetus being born dead. The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrers and dismissed the action, and the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed. The court reasoned that the wrongful death statute requires the death of a "person" and that an unborn child does not qualify as a person under the statute's ordinary meaning, so no independent right of action existed that could be transmitted to the personal representative. It further noted that the statute's language, modeled on Lord Campbell's Act, had historically been interpreted not to cover stillborn children absent legislative change.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Billy Joe Barrett, who was indicted for the rape of his twelve-year-old daughter but had the rape charge struck by the court; a jury then convicted him of attempt to rape and sentenced him to five years in prison. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the conviction and remanded for a possible new trial, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the crime of attempt. The court reasoned that an attempt requires both intent and a direct act toward commission, that intent may be inferred from circumstances but all proved facts must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and here the evidence—including the defendant's plausible explanation that he mistook the girl for his young son and intended only to play with him—failed to meet that standard, as his lack of erection and other details were consistent with innocence.

criminal law

This case involved a 1966 automobile collision at an uncontrolled intersection in Portsmouth, Virginia, where plaintiff Eccles sued defendant King for personal injury damages after their vehicles collided; Eccles recovered a $3,750 verdict and judgment at trial. King appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by refusing his jury instructions on right-of-way and that Eccles was contributorily negligent. The Virginia Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that under Code § 46.1-221, King (the driver on the right) had the statutory right-of-way because the vehicles approached the intersection at approximately the same time, making Eccles negligent per se for failing to yield. The court rejected the trial court's rationale that a major artery like Portsmouth Boulevard should be treated differently without stop or yield signs, noting that any such exception must come from the legislature, not judicial interpretation, and that King's compliance with stopping did not forfeit his right-of-way.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned whether a county zoning ordinance barred Blue Ridge Stone Corporation from resuming quarrying on the Thomas tract after operations there had paused for over a year. The Board of Zoning Appeals had split on the issue, leading to court review under the ordinance's provision that prohibited resuming quarries, crushing plants, or asphalt plants in M-2 districts if discontinued for more than a year. The circuit court ruled that the prohibition did not apply, and the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the three adjoining tracts (Thomas, Todd, and France) formed a single operational area under one contract, with continuous use of the combined property for quarrying and related activities that had not been discontinued for the requisite period.

business & regulatoryproperty

Lewis v. Commonwealth involved Delbert Lewis, who was charged under Virginia Code § 18.1-212 with crimes against nature (oral sodomy) against two brothers, ages 14 and 16, after allegedly forcing them at gunpoint into his car on March 4, 1967, driving them to isolated areas, and compelling the acts before releasing them. A jury convicted Lewis on both counts and fixed punishment at one year in prison each, which the trial court imposed after denying a motion for a new trial. Lewis appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to support the convictions and that after-discovered evidence warranted a retrial. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the judgments, holding that the victims' identifications, detailed descriptions of the car and events, and corroborating timeline evidence were sufficient for the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the motion for a new trial failed to meet the legal requirements for after-discovered evidence, particularly the showing of due diligence. The court found no reversible error in the trial proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure