Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

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.

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.

Patricia LaCava was convicted in the circuit court of two counts of embezzlement. LaCava commenced her appeal pro se. LaCava filed a timely notice of appeal and asked the court reporter to order transcripts of the trial proceedings. LaCava subsequently secured representation by appellate counsel, who discovered that the transcripts had not been filed within the sixty-day period required by Va. R. Crim. App. 5A:8(a). After filing the transcripts by hand, counsel filed a motion to extend the deadline for filing transcripts. The court of appeals denied the motion and thereafter denied LaCava's petition for appeal. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the court of appeals, holding (1) the court of appeals abused its discretion in denying LaCava's motion to extend the deadline for filing her transcript, as LaCava showed good cause to extend the period for filing transcripts; and (2) the court of appeals erred in denying LaCava's petition for appeal because the order was predicated solely on the absence of a transcript or statement of facts.

Defendant Jean Enriquez was found in a drunken condition in a parked motor vehicle with the keys in the ignition switch. Defendant was subsequently convicted of driving or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. Defendant appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to convict him as a matter of law of the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) when an intoxicated person is seated behind the steering wheel of a motor vehicle on a public highway and the key is in the ignition switch, he is in actual physical control of the vehicle and, therefore, is guilty of operating the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol within the meaning of Va. Code Ann. 18.2-266; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle and to support his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

When he was fifteen years old, E.C. pled guilty to breaking and entering and rape. After E.C. was released from custody and placed under parole supervision, a team of attorneys filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on E.C.'s behalf alleging that E.C.'s guilty plea was neither knowing nor voluntary and was unconstitutionally invalid because of ineffective assistance of counsel. Six days after his petition was filed, E.C. was released from parole supervision. The circuit court dismissed the petition, concluding that it had no jurisdiction to consider the petition and that the habeas corpus proceeding was moot. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court had active jurisdiction over the proceeding because E.C. was detained for purposes of habeas corpus when the petition was filed; and (2) E.C.'s release from probation during the pendency of the habeas corpus proceeding did not automatically render the proceeding moot, as the collateral consequences imposed on E.C. by the convictions he challenged were sufficient to sustain a continued controversy.

James Blaxton was convicted in 1989 of rape, forcible sodomy and attempted sodomy. In 2008, the Commonwealth filed a petition seeking Blaxton's civil commitment as a sexually violent predator. The trial court found that Blaxton was a sexually violent predator under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). The circuit court subsequently entered an order granting Blaxton conditional release and transferred supervision of Blaxton to the state of Illinois after finding that the SVPA does not prohibit interstate transfers of sexually violent predators. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's judgment was error pursuant to Commonwealth v. Amerson, in which the Court held that the SVPA does not authorize the conditional release of a sexually violent predator outside the Commonwealth. Remanded.

Defendant pled guilty to attempted rape, a felony. Defendant's sentencing order contained a provision stating that the sentencing court would reduce the conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor following Defendant's incarceration and successful completion of probation. After Defendant violated his probation, he filed a motion to vacate the sentencing order as void ab initio and to dismiss his charge of the probation violation, arguing that the circuit court did not have the power to reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor under the circumstances. The circuit court denied Defendant's motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in this case, the circuit court did not have the power to render a judgment reducing Defendant's conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor more than five years after its entry of the sentencing order; and (2) the ultra vires provision in the sentencing order resulted in the entire sentencing order being void ab initio.

After Jennifer Bing was arrested on suspicion of drug possession and distribution, a lieutenant conducted a full cavity search on Bing. Almost two years later, Bing filed a complaint against several law enforcement officers, alleging assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and that the search was illegal. The trial court found that the statute of limitations barred Bing's claim and dismissed with prejudice the cause of action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err when it granted Defendants' plea of the statute of limitations because Bing was "confined" within the meaning of Va. Code Ann. 8.01-243.2, and the body cavity search related to the conditions of her confinement. Therefore, a one-year statute of limitations applied.