Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Robert Charles Gleason, Jr. received two death sentences following pleas of guilty to capital murder in the killings of two fellow inmates, Harvey Grey Watson and Aaron Cooper. Although Defendant was found competent to waive appeal and did so, the Supreme Court conducted the required statutory review and affirmed the judgments of the circuit court, holding (1) the death sentences were not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor; and (2) the sentences were not excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.

Defendant was indicted for aggravated malicious wounding and use of a firearm during an aggravated malicious wounding. During trial, the Commonwealth moved that the court declare a witness who claimed memory loss unavailable and admit the transcript of his preliminary hearing testimony. The court, relying on the court of appeals' decision in Jones v. Commonwealth, found the witness unavailable. Because the court ruled that the transcript was inadmissible, the court allowed Defendant's counsel at the hearing to testify about the witness's testimony. Defendant thereafter was convicted of both charges. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in declaring the witness unavailable, and the error was not harmless. Remanded.

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of, inter alia, use of a firearm while committing burglary and participation in a criminal street gang. A divided panel of the court of appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that the circuit court did not err by finding the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant of gang participation. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed Defendant's convictions for gang participation and for use of a firearm in the commission of burglary, holding (1) the circuit court erred in admitting certain evidence offered to support the conviction of criminal street gang participation, and therefore, the Commonwealth failed to prove an essential element of the crime; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for use of a firearm in commission of burglary.

John Rives was arrested for using profane, threatening, or indecent language over public airways, a misdemeanor. Convicted in the general district court, Rives appealed to the circuit court where he was again convicted. The court of appeals affirmed after applying the Miller v. California test for the definition of obscenity and finding that the phone calls made by Rives' met the Miller test for obscenity because the evidence was sufficient to permit a rational fact-finder to conclude that Rives' language had as its dominant theme an appeal to the prurient interest in sex and was therefore obscene within the meaning of the statute. The Supreme Court affirmed but for a slightly different reason, holding (1) the question of whether language used in telephonic communications is obscene is immaterial in cases involving threats to commit illegal or immoral acts, where the threat is made with the intent to coerce, intimidate or harass any person; and (2) Rives' language was clearly sufficient to enable a rational fact-finder to conclude that he was threatening the complainant with physical injury in the form of a sexual offense, with the obvious intent to intimidate and harass her.

Geoff Livingston and 134 other homeonwers or renters (collectively Plaintiffs) in a Fairfax County subdivision brought an inverse condemnation suit against the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) after their homes were flooded during a severe storm. The circuit court dismissed the suit on demurrer, holding that a single occurrence of flooding could not support an inverse condemnation claim under Va. Const. art. I, 11. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the facts alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint, if taken as true, established that their homes and personal property were damaged by VDOT's operation of, and failure to maintain, the relocation of a tributary stream, the circuit court erred in dismissing their inverse condemnation suit on VDOT's demurrer. Remanded.

On his wife's complaint, Defendant was arrested and tried on a misdemeanor warrant for sending emails to his wife accusing his wife of engaging in sexual acts with other men and soliciting sex on Craigslist. Defendant was convicted of harassment by a computer. A panel of the court of appeals reversed on the ground that Defendant's emails were not obscene under the definition of obscenity the court of appeals adopted in Allman v. Commonwealth. However, in its decision en banc, the court of appeals overruled its decision in Allman and adopted a newly broadened definition of obscenity, holding that Defendant's emails were obscene within that definition. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and vacated Barson's conviction, holding (1) the definition of "obscene" provided by the General Assembly in Va. Code Ann. 18.2-372 controlled this case, and accordingly, the court of appeals erred in substituting a dictionary definition for that provided by the General Assembly; and (2) Defendant's emails to his wife did not meet the standard of obscenity provided by section 18.2-372.

Violet Seabolt filed a complaint against Albermarle County alleging that she was injured as a result of the County's gross negligence in maintaining a public park. The County filed a demurrer to gross negligence and a special plea of sovereign immunity. The circuit court sustained the demurrer as to gross negligence but declined to rule on the County's special plea of sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Seabolt's complaint but on different grounds, holding that the circuit court erred by not granting the County's special plea of sovereign immunity because, in the absence of a legislative waiver of immunity, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate Seabolt's tort claim against the County, and therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to decide the case on any other basis.

These companion appeals arose out of a personal-injury suit brought by a former high school student who was injured in a fight with another student on school grounds. On the morning of the fight, an assistant principal received a report that the fight would occur sometime that day, but he did not act on the report before the fight. The injured student sued two students and the assistant principal, asserting claims for simple and gross negligence, assault, and battery. The circuit court entered judgment against all three defendants, awarding the injured student a total of $5 million in damages. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court erred by (1) holding that the assistant principal was not entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity from Plaintiff's simple negligence claim under the common law; and (2) refusing Plaintiff's proffered jury instruction on gross negligence. Remanded for a new trial limited to Plaintiff's gross negligence claim against the assistant principal.

Mary Arnold, who was injured in an automobile collision, brought a negligence action against the other driver, Jonathan Wallace, who was uninsured. Travelers Insurance Company, Arnold's carrier, defended the suit pursuant to its uninsured motorist coverage. The jury awarded a verdict for Arnold in the amount of $9,134. Arnold appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in admitting medical records under the business records exception, as there was established a sufficient foundation for the admission of the evidence; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in finding an expert physician qualified to testify when her partner previously had been retained by the opposing counsel.

Thomas Porter was convicted in the circuit court of the capital murder of a law enforcement officer, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and grand larceny. The trial court sentenced Porter to death plus twenty-two years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court subsequently dismissed Porter's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding (1) Porter was not denied the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury because a juror failed to disclose during voir dire that his brother was employed as a deputy sheriff, as Porter failed to demonstrate that the juror failed to answer honestly a material question during voir dire; (2) the Commonwealth did not fail to disclose exculpatory information as required by Brady v. Maryland; and (3) Porter failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient for failing to investigate Porter's childhood and educational history.