Charles S. Russell

This case involved a claim for workers' compensation death benefits by the widow of Matthew Thorpe, who died after falling through a skylight while performing metal roofing work for a contractor. The central dispute concerned the calculation of Thorpe's average weekly wage under Virginia Code § 65.2-101, where the only evidence was a fixed-price contract for $5,000 (half to Thorpe) for a job with no set duration and no data on comparable wages in the trade. The deputy commissioner and Commission computed the wage based on the single transaction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court of Virginia likewise affirmed, holding that the statute's directive to divide earnings by weeks worked applies only when doing so yields fair and just results for both parties, which it would not here given the one-time project with no evidence of ongoing or similar employment.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Jerry Lee Anderson, convicted in a bench trial of forcible fellatio against a 41-year-old victim in Pittsylvania County after an encounter at his home. The appeal centered on whether the trial court erred by admitting portions of the victim's prior consistent statements to a counselor and police to rehabilitate her credibility after impeachment by a prior inconsistent statement. The Supreme Court of Virginia assumed without deciding that some statements may have been overly repetitious and improperly admitted, but held any such error harmless because independent evidence—including the victim's prompt reports, her daughter's observations of her distress, visible bruises noted by a deputy, and the defendant's shifting accounts during recorded calls and interviews—bolstered her testimony. The court therefore affirmed the conviction, finding the defendant received a fair trial on the merits.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether evidence was sufficient to convict Russell Ernest Smith, Jr. of willfully and intentionally making a materially false statement on a federal firearm purchase form in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-308.2:2(K). Smith had been indicted for a felony two days before he answered "no" on the form to the question of whether he was under indictment for a felony, leading to the cancellation of his attempted gun purchase and his arrest. The trial court convicted him after finding he "knew what was going on," and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed, holding that the statute requires proof of actual knowledge that the statement was false and that no such evidence existed here, as Smith testified he was unaware of the indictment and did not understand the term.

criminal lawguns

This case was about whether the Commonwealth of Virginia could be held liable under the Virginia Tort Claims Act for injuries a prisoner suffered due to alleged negligence by a county sheriff's deputies in failing to protect him from other inmates. The court decided that the Commonwealth was not liable and affirmed the dismissal of the case on sovereign immunity grounds. The core reasoning was that sheriffs and their deputies are constitutional officers independent of the Commonwealth government, so they are not 'employees' whose negligence would trigger the Act's limited waiver of immunity.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an employee of a general contractor injured on a construction site by the alleged negligence of an employee of an uninsured subcontractor. The injured worker, who had already received workers' compensation benefits from his employer, brought a common-law tort suit against the subcontractor and its employee. The circuit court denied the defendants' plea in bar asserting exclusivity under the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act, but the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed and dismissed the action. The court held that the defendants qualified as statutory co-employees because they were engaged in the same project that was part of the general contractor's trade, business, or occupation, and therefore they were protected by the Act's exclusivity provisions regardless of their own lack of insurance.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff who, after a 2004 car accident, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2005 without listing his personal injury claim as an asset, received a discharge, and then filed multiple lawsuits against the defendant starting in 2006. The Virginia Supreme Court held that the circuit court erred in denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment, reversing the judgment and dismissing the case. The court reasoned that under federal bankruptcy law the claim became part of the bankruptcy estate upon filing, so the plaintiff lacked standing to sue until the bankruptcy court later granted an exemption in 2009. Because Virginia law treats actions filed without standing as legal nullities that do not toll the statute of limitations, and the two-year personal injury limitations period expired in 2006, all the complaints were time-barred.

proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

In Eastlack v. Commonwealth, the defendant who had been arrested for malicious wounding was found not guilty by reason of insanity and later petitioned for expungement of the related police and court records under Code § 19.2-392.2. The circuit court denied the petition, and the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed. The court held that a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity does not constitute an acquittal under the expungement statute, as it does not establish innocence of the charged act but instead excuses criminal responsibility due to mental condition while imposing ongoing evaluations and restrictions. The court further reasoned that allowing expungement would conflict with other statutes specifically addressing insanity acquittals and produce an absurd result contrary to legislative intent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Shawn S. Necaise, who was charged with two felonies but pled guilty to lesser included misdemeanor offenses after the charges were reduced. Necaise petitioned for expungement of the felony records under Code § 19.2-392.2, which allows expungement when a person is acquitted, a nolle prosequi is taken, or the charge is otherwise dismissed. The circuit court denied the petition for the felony charges, and the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, holding that the charges were not dismissed but instead resulted in convictions for lesser offenses. The court reasoned that expungement is intended to protect innocent citizens from unwarranted damage to their records, not individuals who have been found guilty, and that expunging the felony records would distort the factual record of the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Marquis Devon Byrd challenging his convictions for second-degree murder, unlawful wounding, and firearm use after a jury trial. Byrd alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to renew a motion to strike the evidence at the close of all evidence and his sentencing counsel failed to obtain a ruling on a motion to set aside the verdict, resulting in procedural default of a sufficiency challenge on direct appeal. The circuit court found deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington but no prejudice, and the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the dismissal. The court reasoned that even if the sufficiency issue had been preserved, there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome on appeal because the Commonwealth's evidence, viewed favorably, supported the verdicts under the given jury instructions on principals in the first and second degree and concert of action.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a state employee grievance filed by Tammy Estep after the Virginia Department of Corrections involuntarily demoted her from her position as Superintendent of the Central Virginia Correctional Unit. A hearing officer found the demotion unwarranted and ordered her reinstatement to a comparable position in the same pay band with similar housing or a supplement, or alternatively restoration to her original position if no comparable role was available; the decision became final after no review was sought. The DOC attempted compliance by transferring her to a newly created Deputy Warden position at the same pay but with lesser duties, responsibilities, and rank, which Estep challenged as non-comparable. The circuit court found the new role inadequate and ordered her returned to the original position along with attorney fees, and the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the lack of comparability and that the DOC's challenge to the hearing officer's authority had been waived by failing to appeal the decision earlier.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Tony Jermaine Walker's conviction for grand larceny of a van under Virginia Code § 18.2-95, where the prosecution used the NADA blue book to establish that the vehicle's value exceeded the $200 statutory threshold. Walker challenged the admission of the blue book on Sixth Amendment confrontation grounds, arguing it prevented cross-examination of its compilers, but the trial court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court of Virginia all rejected this claim. The courts held that the blue book was not testimonial evidence because it is a neutral industry publication created for general valuation purposes rather than for use in litigation or to prove facts at trial, distinguishing it from the certificates at issue in Crawford v. Washington and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. The Supreme Court further noted that Code § 8.01-419.1 expressly authorizes its admission and that the Commonwealth only needed to show value above $200, which the book satisfied for all listed classes of the relevant van model.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a Virginia trial court had inherent authority to defer disposition of a criminal case after the close of evidence but before entering a formal judgment of guilt. Rafael Hernandez was convicted of assaulting a police officer following a bench trial in which the court found the evidence sufficient for guilt but denied his request for a deferred disposition, ruling it lacked authority to continue the case for possible future dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed, holding that precedent from Moreau v. Fuller established the court's discretionary power to take a matter under advisement or continue it prior to entry of a written conviction order. The court reasoned that a judicial observation about evidentiary sufficiency does not constitute an adjudication of guilt, and no judgment exists until a written order is entered, at which point sentencing is controlled by statute rather than inherent authority. The case was remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion on the deferred disposition motion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Lawrence Roseborough's conviction for driving while intoxicated under Code § 18.2-266 after a single-vehicle crash on private roads within a gated apartment complex. Police arrested him without a warrant based on observations of his condition and statements, then administered a breath test whose results were admitted at trial over his objection that the arrest was invalid and the implied consent law did not apply. The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the warrantless misdemeanor arrest was unlawful because the offense did not occur on a public highway and did not fall within the statutory exceptions in Code § 19.2-81 for accidents or other specified circumstances, rendering the breath-test certificate inadmissible. The Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the circuit court and Court of Appeals had erred in admitting the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the conviction of Terry Lynn Sullivan for misdemeanor animal cruelty under former Code § 3.1-796.122 after a horse named Dip under her care was found emaciated, weak, and unable to stand, ultimately dying despite veterinary intervention. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the conviction on appeal, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Sullivan had deprived the horse of necessary emergency veterinary treatment. The court applied the standard of reviewing evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and deferring to the trial court's factual findings and inferences if supported by the record, concluding that expert testimony established the horse's progressive decline over weeks made the need for care apparent and that Sullivan's account of sudden discovery could be rejected as incredible.

criminal law

This case involved two convictions of Lindsay Alan Bly for drug distribution offenses in Virginia, based primarily on the testimony of a paid confidential informant named Robert Hoyle who conducted controlled buys. Bly moved for a new trial after discovering that the Commonwealth had failed to disclose pre-trial evidence that Hoyle had provided false accounts of drug purchases in other cases, including one where the alleged seller was incarcerated at the time. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the Court of Appeals' decision upholding the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the nondisclosure violated Brady v. Maryland by undermining confidence in the trial outcome. The core reasoning was that Hoyle's credibility was central to the case due to the lack of corroborating evidence such as audio recordings or recovered marked money, and the suppressed information could have been used both to impeach Hoyle and to challenge the thoroughness of the police investigation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Waseem Ali's convictions for robbery and grand larceny from the person after he reached into a convenience store cash register, struggled with an employee over the money, and fled with it. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the robbery conviction, finding sufficient evidence that the taking occurred through violence or intimidation, as the employee resisted and Ali had to yank the money away. The court reversed the grand larceny conviction, holding that the same act could not support both offenses because the evidence showed Ali obtained all the money by force rather than through a separate taking. The court applied the ends of justice exception to Rule 5A:18 to reach the unpreserved issue of multiple convictions from a single act, determining that the record affirmatively showed an element of one offense was missing.

criminal lawprocedure

In Van Dam v. Gay, a former wife sued her divorce attorney for legal malpractice after her claims for survivor benefits under her ex-husband's federal retirement plans were denied following his death in 2006. The property settlement agreement drafted in 1986 and incorporated into the final divorce decree had referenced the benefits but was deemed insufficient under federal law. The circuit court dismissed the suit on statute of limitations grounds, and the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, holding that the cause of action accrued in 1986 when the decree was entered rather than when the ex-husband died or the denial occurred. Under Virginia Code § 8.01-230, the right of action for a contract-based malpractice claim begins to run at the time of the breach and resulting legal injury, even if full damages are contingent or not yet realized, without a discovery rule to toll the period.

procedurefamily law

The case concerned a complaint filed in Virginia circuit court on behalf of plaintiff Harry Shipe against defendant Michael J. Hunter for damages from an automobile collision. The complaint bore the typed name of Virginia-licensed attorney Leo R. Andrews, Jr., but was actually signed by out-of-state attorney Jay S. Weiss using Andrews' name with authorization; Weiss was not licensed in Virginia. The circuit court granted summary judgment, ruling the complaint a nullity under Code § 8.01-271.1 and Rule 1A:4 because it lacked the personal signature of a licensed Virginia attorney or pro se party. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, reasoning that the statute and rules require a lawyer's personal handwritten signature on pleadings to enforce accountability and deter frivolous claims, and that the defect could not be cured by later amendment relating back under the applicable relation-back statutes.

procedure

This case concerned whether a Virginia circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an ex parte petition by Dow Jones & Company under Code § 8.01-324(A) to authorize the Wall Street Journal to publish legal notices, and whether the Virginian-Pilot had standing to intervene and challenge that jurisdiction. Dow filed the petition reciting that the WSJ met the statute's five requirements for newspapers, and the circuit court granted the order without notice to others; the Pilot then moved to intervene and set it aside. The circuit court ruled it had jurisdiction but the Pilot lacked standing. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that circuit courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over such petitions because the statute grants no authority for courts to issue such orders, rendering the ex parte order a nullity, and that the lack of jurisdiction could be raised by the Pilot.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved towing companies based outside Fairfax County challenging a local ordinance that required all vehicles towed from the county to be stored at sites within its boundaries. The companies argued that the restriction violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against out-of-county businesses and that it exceeded the county's authority under the Dillon Rule. The circuit court sustained the county's demurrer, and the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed. The court applied rational basis review, finding a legitimate governmental interest in local storage for enforcement and oversight, and held that the enabling statute granted localities discretion over storage locations. It also concluded that the ordinance was a permissible exercise of delegated regulatory power rather than an ultra vires action.

business & regulatorycivil rights