An expert witness on BB guns testified at a trial that such guns could cause serious bodily injury or death. Since the jury was, alone, responsible for answering the question as to whether a BB gun was a “deadly weapon,” this testimony was improper. The defendant’s conviction of entering a bank with a deadly weapon was reversed by the Court of Appeals of Virginia. The case was Justiss v. Commonwealth (December 11, 2012).
Under Virginia Code sec. 19.2-294.1, whenever a person is charged with both Reckless Driving and DUI from the same act, and is convicted of one, the court is required to dismiss the other. In Lawson v. Commonwealth (December 11, 2012) a driver was charged with both Reckless Driving and felony DUI (as a fourth offense). He was found guilty of Reckless Driving, a misdemeanor, and asked that his DUI be dismissed per the statute. The government argued
Virginia Code sec. 9.1-1101 (b) (3) requires that breath alcohol test machines be tested and found to be accurate at least once every six months. What happens if the prosecutor fails to prove that this actually happened? According to the Court of Appeals of Virginia . . . nothing. According to the Court, prosecutors don’t have to prove a machine’s accuracy; rather, the defendant has the duty to introduce evidence showing that the breath test equipment
The Federal Court in Roanoke, Virginia recently dismissed a plaintiff’s employment retaliation claim while allowing her sexual harassment and assault claims to proceed. In Auriemma v. Logan’s Roadhouse, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 7:12-cv-0284 (W.D. Va. Nov. 19, 2012), a former female employee sued the restaurant at which she had worked as a server, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and various state law torts (such as assault & battery). The plaintiff, Andrea Auriemma, had worked
The Federal District Court in Danville, Virginia recently dismissed a claim of retaliatory discharge by a male plaintiff fired for encouraging a female employee to complain about his supervisor’s jokes about public hair and male anatomy. The Court found that, while the employee thought that the alleged jokes were unlawful sexual harassment, his belief was not objectively reasonable. Rather, the alleged jokes were merely crude and boorish, and not severe or pervasive enough to rise