Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Defendant was indicted on and convicted of one count of capital murder in the commission of, or subsequent to, rape or attempted rape, and one count of capital murder in the commission of abduction with the intent to defile. The sentencing court imposed two sentences of death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not commit prejudicial error in (a) limiting questioning during voir dire, (b) excluding evidence during the penalty phase of trial, and (c) instructing the jury; (2) the evidence was sufficient to prove the elements of the offenses charged and the aggravating factors required for imposition of a sentence of death; (3) the imposition of the death penalty was constitutional and met the relevant statutory factors; and (4) the sentences of death were not imposed under mistake and were not excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. View "Lawlor v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Child was conceived in vitro using Father's sperm and Mother's egg. After Child was born, Father voluntarily signed an acknowledgment of paternity jointly with Mother pursuant to Va. Code 20-49.1(B)(2). The couple later separated, and Father filed a petition to determine parentage and establish custody and visitation, arguing that the acknowledgment of paternity created a final and binding parent-child legal status between Father and Child. Mother filed pleas in bar asserting that Father was barred from being Child's legal parent because he and Mother were never married and Child was conceived through assisted conception. The circuit court sustained the pleas in bar and dismissed the remainder of Father's petition seeking custody and visitation. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the assisted conception statute does not operate to divest individuals of the ability to establish parentage solely due to marital status under the circumstances presented in this case; (2) the assisted conception statute does not violate equal protection but, if not harmonized with another statute to allow unmarried fathers parentage of their children, would violate constitutional rights to due process; and (3) acknowledgments of paternity executed pursuant to section 20-49.1(B)(2) are enforceable. View "L.F. v. Breit" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of robbery and use of a firearm. Less than a month after Defendant was released from prison on probation, Defendant was arrested on a new robbery charge. After a revocation hearing, the circuit court found that Defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation, revoked the probation, and entered an order requiring Defendant to serve the remaining eighteen years and four months of his original sentence. After a rehearing, the court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing that the judgment violated his constitutional right to confront his accusers and the rule against hearsay. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting testimonial hearsay evidence in this probation revocation proceeding, as the evidence comported with the constitutional requirements for admitting the testimonial hearsay evidence and denying Defendant his confrontation rights for "good cause." View "Henderson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Alison Dressner was issued a summons for possession of marijuana. The Commonwealth amended the charge to possession of marijuana. Dressner was then arraigned on the amended charge, and entered a guilty plea to that charge. Dressner subsequently filed a petition for expungement of police and court records pertaining to the possession of marijuana charge. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in concluding that expungement of the possession of marijuana charge would distort the record, as the possession of marijuana charge was necessarily "otherwise dismissed"; and (2) Dressner satisfied the requirements of the expungement statute, where she demonstrated the existence of manifest injustice with the continued existence of information relating to the marijuana charge, and was entitled to have the police and court records relating to the marijuana charge expunged. View "Dressner v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Nurse was fired by Doctor, her supervisor, after she refused his sexual advances. Nurse sued Doctor and her Employer, asserting claims for gender discrimination against Employer and wrongful discharge against Doctor and Employer. Defendants moved to dismiss. The U.S. district court granted the motion as to Doctor, concluding that wrongful discharge claims by an employee are cognizable only against the employer and not against supervisors or co-employees in their individual capacity. On appeal, the U.S. court of appeals certified to the Virginia Supreme Court the question of whether Nurse's wrongful discharge claim was cognizable against Doctor. The Supreme Court concluded that Virginia recognizes a common law tort claim of wrongful discharge in violation of established public policy against an individual who was not the plaintiff's actual employer but who was the actor in violation of public policy, as a supervisor or manager, and who participated in the wrongful firing of the plaintiff. View "VanBuren v. Grubb" on Justia Law

Respondent was convicted of aggravated sexual battery. Subsequently, Respondent was determined to be a sexually violent predator and ordered committed to the custody of the Department of Behavioral Health and Development Services. The circuit court later held an annual assessment hearing of Respondent's status that was conducted by two-way electronic video and audio communications pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 37.2-910(A). At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court found that Respondent remained a sexually violent predator and ruled that he should remain in secure inpatient treatment. Respondent appealed, arguing because he was not physically present at the hearing his due process and statutory rights were violated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the provision in Code 37.2-910(A) for conducting annual assessment hearings under the Sexually Violent Predator Act by video conference was neither unconstitutional facially nor unconstitutional as applied in Respondent's case; and (2) the circuit court correctly found that Respondent remained a sexually violent predator in need of secure inpatient treatment. View "Shellman v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was (1) whether an ordinance authorizing the acquisition of an easement by condemnation also confers the authority to acquire the easement by an action to quiet title, and (2) whether the evidence in this case was sufficient to support the circuit court's ruling that the City of Virginia Beach proved an implied dedication of the disputed easements and whether the court erred in ruling that Lynnhaven Dunes Condominium Association was not entitled to compensation for its loss of riparian rights. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) the authorizing ordinance fully encompassed the City's actions in bringing this condemnation proceeding, and the evidence was sufficient to support the circuit court's ruling that the City had proven it had acquired the easements by implied dedication; but (2) the circuit court erred in ruling that Lynnhaven's loss of riparian rights was non-compensable. View "Lynnhaven Dunes Condo. Ass'n v. City of Virginia Beach" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether the circuit court erred when it held that Defendant was not entitled to credit toward his Virginia sentence for the period he was detained in a Virginia jail awaiting trial. At that time, he was a West Virginia prisoner receiving credit toward his West Virginia sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err when it held Defendant was not entitled to credit toward his Virginia sentence; and (2) the court erred in recharacterizing Defendant's pleading without providing him notice and the opportunity to be heard, but the error was harmless because Defendant was not required to challenge the recharacterization on the appeal, and he was not entitled to credit toward his Virginia sentence. View "Dorr v. Clark" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted in the district court of a felony third offense, DUI after being twice convicted of the same offense within ten years. The circuit court subsequently granted Appellant's motion to dismiss the second DUI case for denial of Appellant's right to a speedy trial. Appellant then filed a petition in the court of appeals for a writ of actual innocence with respect to his felony conviction, contending he was innocent of the felony because one of the requisite predicate misdemeanor convictions had been dismissed with prejudice. A court of appeals panel remanded the case for resentencing on the lesser-included offense of DUI, second conviction. The court of appeals thereafter granted the Commonwealth's petition for a rehearing en banc. The court of appeals, with ten judges sitting en banc, dismissed the writ of actual innocence without opinion by an equally-divided court and withdrew the previous order by the panel. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the panel's judgment could only have been withdrawn and thus reversed by a majority of the judges sitting in the court en banc. Remanded with direction to reinstate the judgment of the panel. View "Conley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2-308.2(A). Defendant appealed, arguing that he should have been convicted of only one continuous possession. The court of appeals upheld all three possession convictions, holding that each of the convictions was based on "distinguishable incidents." At issue on appeal was whether evidence of the possession of one firearm on three separate occasions can constitute three separate charges for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the incidents at issue constituted distinct acts or occurrences, each reflecting an enhanced danger to the public, and convictions for the three separate charges on the facts of this case were therefore valid under Code 18.2-308.2(A). View "Baker v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law