UPDATE ON RECENT APPELLATE DEVELOPMENTS
[Posted October 26, 2009] Theres plenty of appellate news to discuss today, so gather round. Id offer popcorn and Milk Duds, but it looks like youll have to supply your own for now.
Revision to Whitehead v. Commonwealth
In June, the Supreme Court caused a few fainting spells in the AG’s Office when it handed down this criminal decision, which included a ruling that the Commonwealth would be barred from pursuing a right-for-the-wrong-reason affirmance in a conviction for receiving stolen property. At trial, the prosecution had contended that the defendant had “constructively received” the property after her boyfriend had stolen it; that argument was based not on her actual receipt, but on the fact that the proceeds from the sale of the items went to pay her living expenses.
On appeal to the CAV, a panel of the court affirmed the conviction. It apparently recognized that the doctrine of constructive receipt gets no love in the courts of the Commonwealth, but it affirmed on the alternate ground of constructive possession. Back in June, the Supreme Court smacked that ruling aside, pointing out that this issue had not been presented at trial. The justices similarly rejected the Commonwealths contention that the defendant concealed the property, which is an alternate means of proving guilt. That issue, too, hadnt been presented at trial (and indeed was first mentioned in the CAV panels opinion).
This ruling didnt sit well with the Commonwealth, which sought rehearing in the case. (I posted an essay back in July about the prosecutors unease with the decision; you can access that essay here.) That petition bore fruit last week sort of. The court issued a revised opinion in the case on Thursday, in which it added language (see pages 12-14) to explain further the basis for its original ruling. Under the Constitution of Virginia, a criminal defendant has the right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation. That means, the court rules, that if the Commonwealth wants to urge multiple theories of guilt, it has to do so at trial, and cannot hold any of them back until the appeal.
Last Wednesday, I was one of the speakers in an in-house CLE presentation for the Attorney Generals Office, and I spent a fair amount of time talking about Whitehead, not realizing that the opinion would be revised 24 hours later. The revision seems to confirm the CAVs take on the doctrine, as expressed in its October 6 opinion in Smith v. Commonwealth. In footnote 10 of that decision, the court theorized that if the arguments address discrete elements of a crime or separate doctrines of adjudication that require additional fact-finding, then the prosecutorial argument is waived. Heres the language from the revised Whitehead opinion, so you can compare:
Both the constructive possession and concealment methods of proof require presentation of facts that would not be necessary under other methods of proof supporting conviction for receipt of stolen property. The Commonwealth clearly articulated its case for prosecuting Whitehead constructive receipt. Because the Commonwealth limited its method of proof at trial, Whitehead was not on notice to present evidence to rebut any other method of proof possible.
Accordingly, thats the standard for when the courts will apply the right-for-the-wrong-reason rule, and when they will apply the waiver rule, in criminal cases. Because this decision comes in a criminal case, and is based on a constitutional provision relating to a criminal defendants rights, Id be wary of citing this case as authority in a civil appeal.
Yes, Virginia; you can be civil, and even kind, and still be an effective advocate. I’m not the only lawyer who feels this way; my cyber-colleague Jay O’Keeffe over at De Novo posted a comment about civility last Friday. And this isnt limited to appellate courts; your local juvenile-court judge will be just as impressed with your professionalism in her courtroom as the justices will be when you come into court on
New unpublished opinion from SCV
On Friday, October 23, the Supreme Court decided by order one of the cases argued in the September session. The new decision is Garlick v. Safeway, Inc. The trial court had granted the grocers motion to strike in a slip-and-fall case, reasoning that Garlick had failed to prove how long some water was on a floor before she slipped on it. Garlick adduced evidence that the water was at the exact location where just moments before a Safeway store employee had been unloading refrigerated cheese from a cart, and that it customarily takes from thirty minutes to two hours to stock cheese.
Report from the VSB symposium
The most recent in the Appellate Practice Committees appellate symposia was presented last Monday, and by all accounts it was a great success. It had the largest attendance of any symposium thus far, and section chair Monica Monday had to cut off registration at about 45, lest it become too large for the facility (generously provided by LeClair Ryan) and for the format. Attendees got the benefit of an exchange of ideas with experienced practitioners and two appellate jurists (Senior Justice Lacy and Judge Humphreys) on what makes some oral arguments magic and others . . . less so. The final half-hour was a mock oral argument, followed by a debriefing in which the audience got to hear what was behind the questions and the answers.
Boyd Graves tables CAV jurisdiction issue
The Boyd Graves Conference met last Friday and Saturday. You probably know that this is a very prestigious gathering of
This year, there was only one study committee that dealt with purely-appellate matters whether to recommend expansion of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. That study committee (which I chaired) unfortunately reached an impasse, and accordingly the Conference effectively tabled the issue for this year. Its reasonably likely that the matter will be revisited again in a couple of years. In the meantime, the report of the Futures Commission recommends expansion of the CAVs jurisdiction to all classes of appeals, making it a true court of intermediate general jurisdiction. (You’ll need to scroll all the way down to page 24 to read the recommendation, but trust me; it’s there.) Well see how this plays out, as certain segments of the legal community are likely to oppose such a broad expansion.