published by the criminal law section of the virginia ... · news criminal law volume 42, number 1...

{ }

NEWSCriminal Law Volume 42, Number 1

October 2012

Published by the Criminal law seCtion of the Virginia state bar for its members

New Board MembersJudge Rufus A. Banks, Jr. received his B.A. from Old Dominion University in 1987, and his J.D. from The North Carolina Central University School of Law in 1992. From 1993 to 1996, he served as an Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Portsmouth. In 1996, he joined the law firm of Huff, Poole & Mahoney PC where he practiced in the area of Creditors Rights and Landlord and Tenant Law. Judge Banks was a contributor to a chapter in The Law of Damages in Virginia. He also wrote numerous articles on land-lord and tenant issues. In 1999, Judge Banks was appointed to serve on the Chesapeake Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court. He served as Chief Judge of the Court from 2002 to 2008 and most recently from 2010 to 2012.

Judge Steven C. Frucci received his undergraduate degree in 1988 and law degree in 1991 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. From 1991-2009, he had a trial practice focusing mainly on domestic relations and criminal law. Prior to taking the bench in 2009, he was a partner with Stallings and Bischoff in Virginia Beach. During that time, he served as chair of the Virginia Beach Bar Association Liaison Committee for the General District and the Circuit Courts; was a certified Fee Dispute Arbitrator for the Virginia State Bar; was a CLASS attorney in the Virginia Beach J&DR; and served as a GAL. Judge Frucci was admitted to the bar in Hawaii (1996); to the U.S. Supreme Court (2000); and to the USDC, 4th and COA (1991). Since taking the bench, he has been appointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia to serve as a member of the Advisory Committee for the newly formed Judicial Mentoring Program, and also as a Judicial Mentor.

Criminal Law Section Board Elected to Lead Section in 2012-2013

Front Row, seated (l to r): Joel R. Branscom, Secretary; Lisa K. Caruso, Chair; Francis McQ. Lawrence, Vice Chair;Back Row, standing (l to r): Neil H. MacBride, U.S. Attorney, Eastern District, ex officio; Colette Wallace McEachin;

Elizabeth P. Murtagh; Melissa H. Hoy; Nancy G. Parr; Judge Charles S. Sharp; Theo K. Stamos; Casey R. Stevens, Samuel Eugene Fishel IV, ex officio; Claire G. Cardwell; Reno S. Harp III, ex officio; and Judge Rufus A. Banks, Jr.

Criminal Law News October 2012

Melissa H. Hoy graduated from Trinity College, Hartford in 1989, and from the University of Richmond School of Law in 1992. She is licensed in New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. She was in private practice with a general practice, including criminal law, from 1993-1998. Since 1998, she has been in the Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney in Chesterfield, Virginia serving as Assistant Commonwealth’s

Attorney until 2011, at which time she became Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney. Ms. Hoy served as president of the Chesterfield Bar Association (2009-10); on the board of direc-tors of the Greater Richmond Bar Foundation (2003-2009) and the Richmond YWCA (2010-present); as an adjunct fac-ulty member at University of Richmond School of Law (2005-11); and as an instructor for the Chesterfield Police Academy and Virginia Association of Commonwealth’s Attorneys. She is a member of the Virginia Bar Association, the Bar Association of the City of Richmond and the Metro Richmond Women’s Bar Association.

Elizabeth P. Murtagh is the Deputy Public Defender, Charlottesville-Albemarle Public Defender’s Office. She received her undergraduate degree (1979) from Virginia Commonwealth University, and her J.D. from Washington and Lee University (1989). She is Associate Editor, Virginia Capital Case Clearinghouse Digest; Member, Charlottesville-Albemarle Bar Association; Member, Indigent Defense Commission’s Juvenile Law Study Group; Member, House Joint Resolution 69 Juvenile Competency Workgroup, Virginia Commission on Youth; Member, Mid-Atlantic Juvenile Defender Center Advisory Board of the ABA National Juvenile Defender Center; Investigator, ABA study An Assessment of Access to Counsel and the Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings in Virginia; Member, Virginia Indigent Defense Commission Standards of Practice Committee; and Member, Indigent Defense Commission Appellate Default Committee.

John P. Fishwick, Jr. practices primarily in the area of business litigation (including employment), federal criminal, product liability and class action with the firm of Lichtenstein Fishwick PLC, in Roanoke. He is a 1979 graduate of Harvard University, and received his law degree from Washington and Lee Law School in 1983, where he graduated cum laude and was an editor of the Law Review. He previously served as a law clerk to The Honorable James C. Turk, United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Mr. Fishwick has served in a number of legal organiza-tions, including: President, The Ted Dalton Inn of Court (2011); Chairman, Business Litigation Section, Virginia

Trial Lawyers Association (2003-2010); Member, Virginia State Bar Council (2001–2007); Member, Virginia State Bar Standing Council on Legal Ethics (2003-2007); Chairman, Magistrate Merit Selection Panel, U.S. District Court, Western District of Virginia (1997, 2011); Member, Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference; and as a Board Member, Virginia Trial Lawyers.

Nancy G. Parr grew up in Suffolk, Virginia. She gradu-ated from the University of Virginia with High Distinction and from T.C. Williams School of Law at the University of Richmond. Having practiced law since 1983, she was a prosecutor in Suffolk before joining the Chesapeake Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office in 1994. For six of those years, she also served as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of

Virginia. She also served as an instructor at the National Advocacy Center (2001-2010). On March 1, 2005, Ms. Parr was sworn in as the Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Chesapeake. Ms. Parr has been involved with many organizations, including the Virginia State Crime Commission (mem-ber 2012-2014); Commonwealth’s Attorney Service Council (4th Congressional District elected representative; 2012-13 Secretary); Virginia Association of Commonwealth’s Attorneys (2012-13 Treasurer/Secretary); Virginia Criminal Justice Conference; Justice Reinvestment Initiative Work Group; Virginia State Bar Council; and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Southeast Virginia Chesapeake Division.

MEMBER RESOURCES AREA http://www.vsb.org/site/sections/criminal/

ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTERS FOR SECTION MEMBERS

Don’t miss the opportunity to receive your newsletters elec-tronically. If you have provided your email address as part of your official address of record with the Virginia State Bar, you will receive future newsletters electronically. The newsletters will also be posted on the section’s website.

Visit the VSB’s website at https://member.vsb.org/vsbpor-tal/ to verify or change your address of record (home or business) and post your email address. You will be given the opportunity to limit the use of your email address on this site.

Access the section’s website for newsletters using this info: Username: criminallawmember Password: Ljhd95pf

This site is available only to Section members.


Chair’s ColumnLisa K. Caruso

It is a privilege to serve as Chair of the Virginia State Bar’s Section on Criminal Law Board of Governors for 2012-2013. It has been an honor and a pleasure to serve on the Board since 2008, and I look forward to another busy and exciting year for this section. The Board is currently preparing for the Section’s 43rd Annual Criminal Law Seminar to be held February 1, 2013, in Charlottesville and February 8, 2013, in Williamsburg. We began the planning process in May, and our Vice Chair and Seminar Program Chair, Francis McQ. Lawrence, and your Board of Governors have put together a timely and interesting program that I am certain will inform as well as entertain. Coming soon….your Criminal Law Section will be fea-tured in the December 2012 issue of the Virginia Lawyer. Last winter, Judge Ashley K. Tunner and her committee made up of members of the Board began the process of accepting submis-sions. To date, they have assembled articles that cover a wide range of pertinent topics. Our sincere thanks are extended to Judge Tunner for spearheading and organizing this effort. We look forward to seeing the end result in December. There are new Board members whom we are happy to welcome this year: Judge Rufus A. Banks Jr., Juvenile and Domestic Relations Judge in the City of Chesapeake; Nancy G. Parr, Chesapeake Commonwealth’s Attorney; Elizabeth P. Murtagh, Deputy Public Defender, City of Charlottesville/County of Abermarle; Judge Steven C. Frucci, General District Judge for the City of Virginia Beach; Melissa H. Hoy, Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney for the County of Chesterfield, and John P. Fishwick, Jr., of Lichtenstein Fishwick PLC, in Roanoke. We look forward to working with these new members, and to soliciting their views on ways to improve the Section and its interaction with our membership as we move into the future. Retiring members of the Board who will be greatly missed are: Judge Ashley K. Tunner, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Judge for the City of Richmond, and Judge Michael E. McGinty Circuit Judge in the 9th Judicial Circuit. Their terms ended on June 30, 2012. It has been a true pleasure to serve with each of these distinguished and consummate professionals. Casey R. Stevens retires as Chair, but will continue to serve on the Board as the Immediate Past Chair. To Casey,

we extend our thanks and appreciation for his impressive and no-nonsense leadership this past year. I am honored to follow him as Chair of this highly respected Section. In reading back over prior chair’s letters, it seems to be a tradition to finish with a quote. My quote with which to leave you comes from William Faulkner. I quote Faulkner even though I pledged my eternal hatred of him and his stream of consciousness writing style after spending weeks on “As I Lay Dying” in high school English class. However, I digress. I find the following quote befitting, as I believe it applies to all of us as we strive to be the best that we can be at practicing the type of law that we love.

“Don’t bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.” ~William Faulkner

U.S. SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL LAW AND

PROCEDURE DECISIONSBlueford v. Arkansas, 132 S. Ct. 2044, 2054, 182 L. Ed. 2d 937 (2012). Arkansas uses an “acquittal-first” approach where the jury must complete its deliberations on a greater offense before it may consider a lesser offense. Here the jury reported that it was unanimous against capital and first degree murder, but was deadlocked on manslaughter. Subsequently, when a mistrial was declared and defendant retried for capital murder, he claimed double jeopardy prohibited retrial on any charge greater than manslaugh-ter. The Supreme Court held that double jeopardy did not apply because the jury had never rendered a final verdict. [The dissent maintained that this was form over substance and that double jeopardy applied when “the fact-finder has made a substantive determination that the prosecution has failed to carry its burden”].

Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627, 629, 181 L. Ed. 2d 571 (2012). The eyewitness’s testimony was the only evidence linking defendant to the crime. The eyewitness’s undis-closed statements contradicted his testimony. Thus the eyewitness’s statements were plainly material, and the State’s failure to disclose those statements to the defense violated Brady. See also , Tuma v. Com., 60 Va. App. 273, 294, 726 S.E.2d 365, 375 (2012) (“Tuma’s guilt or inno-cence depended entirely on [the victim’s] reliability as a witness and any evidence affecting her credibility should have been revealed by the Commonwealth”).

Q

Page 3


Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221, 2244, 183 L. Ed. 2d 89 (2012). The Justices split three ways over applying the Confrontation Clause to an expert’s testimony regarding a DNA match.

Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2469, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012). Mandatory life imprisonment without parole is unconstitutional when applied to juveniles. “Although we do not foreclose a sentencer’s ability to make that judgment in homicide cases, we require it to take into account how chil-dren are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a life time in prison.” “If … ‘death is different,’ children are different too.”

S. Union Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344, 2357, 183 L. Ed. 2d 318 (2012). Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466, applies to crimi-nal fines, thus juries must make the factual findings used to increase the maximum potential punishment for a crime.

FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CRIMINAL LAW

AND PROCEDURE DECISIONSWolfe v. Clarke, F.3d (4th Cir 8/16/12). Habeas corpus relief granted to a Virginia prisoner convicted of capi-tal murder and sentenced to death. The court strongly rebuked the Commonwealth’s Attorney and his assistants for “manifold violations” of defendant’s Brady rights. United States v. Dinkins, 09-4668, 2012 WL 3292417 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2012). Non-capital defendant is not entitled to severance from trial with death qualified defendants. See Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 (1987).

Case of first impression re use of anonymous jury. – “An anonymous jury is warranted only when there is strong rea-son to conclude that the jury needs protection from interfer-ence or harm, or that the integrity of the jury’s function will be compromised if the jury does not remain anonymous.”

Forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to hearsay and confrontation clause must be based on finding, by prepon-derance of evidence, that “(1) the defendant engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing (2) that was intended to render the declarant unavailable as a witness and (3) that did, in fact, render the declarant unavailable as a witness.” This is a case of first impression applying this exception to actions by co-conspirators even if one conspirator merely acquiesced and took no action.

United States v. Chappell, 10-4746, 2012 WL 3292420 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2012). Va. Code §18.2-174 prohibits indi-viduals from falsely assuming or pretending to be a law enforcement officer. This statute does not violate the Free speech Clause of the First Amendment.United States v. Sowards, 10-4133, 2012 WL 2386605 (4th Cir. June 26, 2012). “Police lacked probable cause to ini-tiate a traffic stop based exclusively on an officer’s visual estimate – uncorroborated by radar or pacing and unsup-ported by any other indicia of reliability – that defendant’s vehicle was traveling” 5 miles above the speed limit.

VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL LAW AND

PROCEDURE DECISIONSBarson v. Com., 726 S.E.2d 292, 296 (Va. 2012). Overturned the Court of Appeals holding that for purpos-es of Code §18.2-152.7:1 (prohibiting using a computer to harass any person by communicating “obscene” language) obscene language encompasses that which is “disgusting to the senses … offensive or revolting.” The Supreme Court held that “when the legislature uses the same term in separate statutes, that term has the same meaning in each unless the General assembly indicates to the contrary.” Thus prior definitions of obscenity as concerned with sexuality govern this case.

Belew v. Com., 726 S.E.2d 257, 261 (Va. 2012). Generally, a circuit court loses jurisdiction over a case 21 days after the entry of a final order. However, Code §8.01-248 allows a court to correct clerical mistakes “at any time.” In this case, the omission of the Missing Transcript was clerical error and the circuit court had authority to make the Missing Transcript part of the record and defendant was not required to seek an extension of time from the Court of Appeals.

Turner v. Com., 726 S.E.2d 325, 330 (Va. 2012). Lack of memory may render the witness unavailable, but the trial judge must test and determine whether the loss of memory is genuine, or feigned and thus a mere refusal to testify.

Rushing v. Com., 726 S.E.2d 333, 339 (Va. 2012). Contrary to the federal approach, (See Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988)) Virginia holds that “on appellate review of the suf-

Q

Q

Page 3 Page 4


ficiency of the evidence, an appellate court may not con-sider evidence illegally admitted at trial.”

VIRGINIA COURT OF APPEALS CRIMINAL LAW

AND PROCEDURE DECISIONSBellamy v. Com., 60 Va. App. 125, 132, 724 S.E.2d 232, 235 (2012). “The exclusionary rule does not require sup-pression [because] the officer was objectively reasonable in relying on the dispatcher’s report that there was an out-standing warrant for appellant.”

Wells v. Com., 60 Va. App. 111, 118-19, 724 S.E.2d 225, 229 (2012). For embezzlement, “it is not necessary to show that the defendant misappropriated the property for ‘his own personal use and benefit;’ it is sufficient to show that the defendant took the property to benefit another.” [Salesclerk gave unauthorized discounts to a customer].

Beshah v. Com., 60 Va. App. 161, 171, 725 S.E.2d 144, 149 (2012). Forgery under Code §18.2-172 must show “only the possibility that the forged instrument may operate to the prejudice of another’s right. *** Actual prejudice is not required.” “The Sixth Amendment does not ‘demand that a court honor a waiver of conflict-free representation.’ Institutional interest in the appearance, as well as the real-ity, of propriety cannot be vitiated merely by a client’s waiver.”

Hubbard v. Com., 60 Va. App. 200, 210, 725 S.E.2d 163, 167-68 (2012). Defendant should have been permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because “the issue is not whether a court thinks a jury or other fact finder would necessar-ily accept the defense, but rather whether the proffered defense is one that the law would recognize as such if the fact finder found credible the facts supporting it.”

Clarke v. Com., 60 Va. App. 190, 198, 725 S.E.2d 158, 162 (2012). The Court rejected defendant’s claim that a trial court’s bare knowledge of a pending charge that exists at the time of a revocation hearing per se deprives the trial court of the authority to revoke a defendant’s suspended sentence on the basis of that conduct at a subsequent revo-cation hearing.

Echavarry v. Com., 60 Va. App. 177, 185-86, 725 S.E.2d 151, 156 (2012). Even assuming that the police unlawfully entered defendant’s house, the Court refused to apply the exclusionary rule to exclude contraband seized when the defendant was admitted to jail. “The taint of an unlawful search or seizure can dissipate when the causal connection to the purported illegality is remote, or when, even given a direct causal connection, the interest protected by the con-stitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence obtained.”

Daily Press, Inc. v. Com., 60 Va. App. 213, 222, 725 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2012). “The trial court’s order to remove exhib-its and place under seal photocopies of those exhibits was not a purely criminal matter falling under the” Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction.

Hicks v. Com., 60 Va. App. 237, 247, 725 S.E.2d 748, 753-54 (2012). The spontaneous statement was made while declarant “was physically incapacitated, emotionally dis-traught, and lying in a pool of his own blood, and while at the same time asking for medical help. *** Therefore, it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude that [declar-ant] made the statements while still under the influence of the startling event and at a time and under such circum-stances as to preclude the conclusion that they were made as the result of deliberation.”

Desposito v. Com., 60 Va. App. 252, 260, 726 S.E.2d 354, 358 (2012). “Roadblock jurisprudence does not prohibit all discretion by the field officer but only ‘unbridled’ dis-cretion.” The Court rejected defendant’s argument that instructions to operate the roadblock during lunchtime, and the absence of a maximum duration for the check-point “afforded the field officers unbridled discretion that would violate appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights.”

Garcia v. Com., 60 Va. App. 262, 271, 726 S.E.2d 359, 364 (2012). “An abstract concern about living near the crime scene or the possibility of being contacted by outsiders does not stand on the same footing as comments that evince bias or partiality. The trial court correctly discerned that [the juror] was simply being candid about her concern” that peo-ple from the area might seek her out because she was on the jury. The juror assured the trial court that she would “most definitely” be fair and impartial.

Mitchell v. Com., 60 Va. App. 349, 354-55, 727 S.E.2d 783, 786 (2012). Counsel’s failure to cite sufficient legal author-ity, as required by Rule 5a:20, is so significant in this case that we are compelled to find that appellant has ‘waived [his] right to have these issues reviewed by this Court.”

Q

Page 3 Page 4 Page 5


Spence v. Com., 60 Va. App. 355, 371, 727 S.E.2d 786, 794 (2012). “Breach of an ethical standard does not necessar-ily make out a denial of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of assistance of counsel. … Essentially then, an ‘actual conflict of interest’ for purposes of the Sixth Amendment is not to be confused with the mere existence of a ‘conflict of interest’ as defined by a particular jurisdiction’s set of ethical rules. Therefore, we need not consider the ques-tion of whether the trial court properly understood and applied the Rules of Professional Conduct in this particu-lar instance.”

Washington v. Com., 60 Va. App. 427, 437, 728 S.E.2d 521, 526 (2012). One of the exigencies justifying a warrantless entry of a dwelling is a reasonable belief “that the premises have recently been or are being burglarized.” The plain view doctrine governs observations made during the offi-cers’ protective sweep of the premises.

Boone v. Com., 60 Va. App. 419, 426-27, 728 S.E.2d 517, 521 (2012). Although Code §19.2-76.1 provides that arrest warrants shall be destroyed if not executed within 7 years for felony warrants and 3 years for misdemeanor warrants, such warrants remain valid until the circuit court orders their destruction.

Parham v. Com., 60 Va. App. 450, 729 S.E.2d 734 (2012). “Misbehavior in the presence of the court may be sum-marily punished under Code §18.2-456(1) without a show-ing of an obstruction or interruption of justice. *** We have never defined misbehavior in any definitive sense – nor could we. It is assumed that reasonable people under-stand the line between good and bad behavior, particular-ly when exhibited in open court in the presence of a judge. A probationer, after all, is expected to know what his condition of good behavior means in his suspended sen-tence. It is not too much to expect the same from litigants appearing before a court.” (In open court, defendant balled up the JDR court’s written orders).

Burnette v. Com., 60 Va. App. 462, 729 S.E.2d 740 (2012). “The evidence of the bruising and scratches and the resulting involvement of Child Protective Services in [the child’s] care, considered together with appellant’s inconsistent explanations as to how the injuries occurred, possessed significant probative value as it demonstrated appellant’s prior relationship with and feelings toward [the child].” The court also held that experts qualified in pediatrics may not be questioned about “the typical profile and activities of abusive head trauma perpetrators.”

Branch v. Com., 60 Va. App. 540, 729 S.E.2d 777 (2012). “A motion to withdraw a guilty pleas made prior to sen-

tencing should only be granted if a two-part test is satis-fied: first, that the motion is made in good faith, and second, the defense advanced in support of the motion is reasonable and not merely dilatory or formal.”

Pers. v. Com., 60 Va. App. 549, 729 S.E.2d 782 (2012). “The gun in this case was admitted into evidence. The trial court properly instructed the jury on the definition of ‘sawed-off shotgun’ under the statute. …. Using their rea-son, common sense, knowledge, and experience, the jury could determine from examining the gun whether it met the statutory definition…. Because the gun was admitted into evidence, it was not an evidentiary prerequisite for the Commonwealth to present testimony regarding the gun’s characteristics….”

Bay v. Com., 60 Va. App. 520, 729 S.E.2d 768 (2012). “Code §18.2-46.8 expresses the legislature’s intent that it is appropriate to have terrorism charges tried in the county or city where the offense occurred, despite the fact that the acts of terrorism must be accompanied by an intent to intimidate the civilian population.” The court also held that the first day’s search uncovered material used to construct a bomb. The second day’s search warrant indi-cated that officers were looking for additional material “as well as any computer equipment, printed, written typed or computer-generated material used to research or con-struct explosive or incendiary devices. *** It is reasonable to assume, based on the discovery of explosive devices and related paraphernalia in appellant’s bedroom, there would also be documents and other materials used to research and construct explosives in appellant’s bedroom or else-where in the home.”

Coleman v. Com, 60 Va. App. 618, 731 S.E.2d 22 (2012), Applying the principle set forth in Davis, 282 Va. 339, the Court of Appeals held that “the inclusion of sufficient assignments of error is a mandatory procedural require-ment and that the failure to comply with this requirement deprives this court of its active jurisdiction to consider the appeal.”

Jordan v. Commonwealth, Va. App. , S.E.2d (8/28). Evidence was sufficient to convict of possession of a fire-arm by a convicted felon. Defendant pointed the instru-ment directly at the victim’s head “and concurrently demanded that he part with possession of the vehicle. Even without actually saying the words, ‘or I will shoot you,’ a reasonable fact-finder could have certainly con-cluded that defendant’s words and actions implied as much and that what he pointed at the …[victim] was a firearm and not a replica or toy ….”

Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6


C A L L F O R N O M I N AT I O N S

The Harry L. Carrico Professionalism Award was established in1991 by the Section on Criminal Law of the Virginia State Bar torecognize an individual (judge, defense attorney, prosecutor, clerk,or other citizen) who has made a singular and unique contribu-tion to the improvement of the criminal justice system in theCommonwealth of Virginia.

The award is made in honor of the Honorable Harry L.Carrico, a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia,who exemplifies the highest ideals and aspirations of professional-ism in the administration of justice in Virginia. Chief JusticeCarrico was the first recipient of the award, which was institutedat the 22nd Annual Criminal Law Seminar in February 1992.

Although the award will only be made from time to time at thediscretion of the Board of Governors of the Criminal Law Section,the Board will invite nominations annually. Nominations will bereviewed by a selection committee consisting of former chairs of thesection and Chief Justice Carrico.

Prior Recipients

CriteriaThe award will recognize an individual who meets the following

criteria:

◆ Demonstrates a deep commitment and dedication to the highestideals of professionalism in the practice of law and the administra-tion of justice in the Commonwealth of Virginia;

◆ Has made a singular and unique contribution to the improvementof the criminal justice system in Virginia, emphasizing professional-ism as the basic tenet in the administration of justice;

◆ Represents dedication to excellence in the profession and “per-forms with competence and ability and conducts himself/herselfwith unquestionable integrity, with consummate fairness and cour-tesy, and with an abiding sense of responsibility.” (Remarks of ChiefJustice Carrico, December 1990, Course on Professionalism.)

Submission of NominationPlease submit your nomination on the form below, describing specif-

ically the manner in which your nominee meets the criteria establishedfor the award. If you prefer, nominations may be made by letter.

Nominations should be addressed to Lisa Caruso, Chair,Criminal Law Section, and mailed to the Virginia State Bar Office:Eighth and Main Building, Suite 1500, 707 East Main Street,Richmond, VA 23219. Nominations must be received no laterthan December 3, 2012. Please be sure to include your name andthe full name, address, and phone number of the nominee.

If you have questions about the nomination process, please callElizabeth L. Keller, Assistant Executive Director for Bar Services,Virginia State Bar, at (804) 775-0516.

HARRY L. CARRICO PROFESSIONALISM AWARDN O M I N AT I O N F O R M

Please complete this form and return it to the Virginia State Bar, Eighth and Main Building, Suite 1500, 707 East Main Street,Richmond, VA 23219. Nominations must be received no later than December 3, 2012.

Name of Nominee: __________________________________________________________________________________

Profession: _________________________________________________________________________________________

Employer/Firm/Affiliation: ____________________________________________________________________________

Address of Nominee: _________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

City _____________________________________ State _____________ Zip ____________________________

Name of person making nomination ______________________________________________ Telephone ____________________(Please print)

E-mail _______________________________________ Signature _____________________________________________________

(Please attach an additional sheet explaining how the nominee meets the criteria for the Harry L. Carrico Professionalism Award.)

HARRY L. CARRICO PROFESSIONALISM AWARDVSB Section on Criminal Law

The Honorable Harry L. Carrico 1992

James C. Roberts, Esquire 1993

Oliver W. Hill, Esquire 1995

The Honorable Robert F. Horan 1996

Reno S. Harp III, Esquire 1997

The Honorable Richard H. Poff 1998

The Honorable Dennis W. Dohnal 1999

The Honorable Paul F. Sheridan 2000

The Honorable Donald H. Kent 2001

Craig S. Cooley, Esquire 2002

Prof. Robert E. Shepherd 2003

Richard Brydges, Esquire 2004

Overton P. Pollard, Esquire 2005

The Honorable Paul B. Ebert 2006

Rodney G. Leffler 2007

Prof. Ronald J. Bacigal 2008

The Honorable Jere M.H. Willis Jr. 2010

Melinda Douglas 2012

NEWSCriminal Law FIRST CLASS

U.S. POSTAGEPAID

PERMIT NO. 709RICHMONDVirginia State Bar

eighth & Main Building707 eaSt Main Street, Suite 1500richMond, Virginia 23219-2800

Virginia State Bar Criminal Law SectionBoard of Governors 2010-2011

Elizabeth L. Keller, Staff Liaison

Newsletter Editor: Professor Ronald J. Bacigal, University of Richmond School of Law

www.vsb.org/site/sections/criminal

StatEmENtS oR ExPRESSioNS of oPiNioN oR commENtS aPPEaRiNg hEREiN aRE thoSE of thE EditoRS aNd coNtRiBUtoRS aNd Not NEcESSaRiLy thoSE of thE StatE BaR oR SEctioN.

hon. dennis W. dohnal, Ex-Officio, Judicialhon. charles S. Sharp, Ex-Officio, Judicial

hon. ashley K. tunner, Ex-Officio, Judicialhon. James S. yoffy, Ex-Officio, Judicial

Joel R. BranscomJames a. Bullard, Jr.claire g. cardwell

Linda d. curtisdavid J. damico

francis mcQ. Lawrence

andrea L. moseleyJeffrey a. Swartz

Reno S. harp, iii, Ex Officiohon. Neil h. macBride, Ex Officio U.S. attorney, Eastern district of Virginia

carolyn V. grady, Chaircasey R. Stevens, Vice Chair

Lisa K. caruso, SecretaryRichard E. trodden Immediate Past Chair

Lisa K. Caruso, ChairFrancis McQ. Lawrence, Vice Chair

Joel R. Branscom, SecretaryCasey R. Stevens,

Immediate Past Chair

Claire G. CardwellJohn. P. Fishwick, Jr.

Melissa H. HoyColette Wallace McEachin

Robert G. MorecockAndrea L. Moseley

Elizabeth P. MurtaghNancy G. Parr

S. Eugene Fishel IV, Ex Officio Reno S. Harp, III, Ex Officio

Hon. Neil H. MacBride, Ex OfficioU.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia

Virginia State Bar Criminal Law SectionBoard of Governors 2012-2013

Hon. Rufus A. Banks, Jr., Ex-Officio, Judicial Hon. Ivan D. Davis, Ex-Officio, Judicial

Hon. Steven C. Frucci, Ex Officio, JudicialHon. Charles S. Sharp, Ex Officio, Judicial

Elizabeth L. Keller, Staff Liaison

published by the criminal law section of the virginia ... · news criminal law volume 42, number 1...

Documents