Brian Charles Henley v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 0429164

On June 20, 2015, EMS found Brian Henley appearing confused, groggy, and with altered mental status; deputies responded.
Deputies Frost, Weaver, and Corporal Brubaker observed signs of intoxication and asked Henley for identifying information and to perform a preliminary breath test.
Henley asked to call an attorney; deputies allowed the call but he could not reach counsel. He provided a name and Social Security number that was incorrect.
A preliminary breath test indicated a BAC of .129; deputies arrested Henley for drunk in public and identity fraud (false SSN).
While being walked to a cruiser, Henley became disorderly, made lewd comments, kicked and attempted to kiss an officer; he was charged with assault and battery on a law enforcement officer. The identity-fraud charge was later stricken; a jury convicted Henley of assault and battery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Henley)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether deputies continued a custodial interrogation after Henley requested counsel, requiring suppression of subsequent statements	Henley argued he requested counsel and statements after that request should be suppressed as custodial interrogation	Commonwealth implicitly argued either no custody for Miranda purposes or no incriminating statements relevant to the conviction	Court held Henley failed to identify incriminating statements relevant to his assault conviction; no suppression warranted
Whether Henley had the right to resist an illegal arrest using reasonable force	Henley argued his arrest was illegal and he lawfully resisted with reasonable force	Commonwealth argued evidence supported lawful arrest and conviction; issue was not preserved for appeal	Court held the issue was not preserved (Rule 5A:18); refusal to apply ends-of-justice exception; conviction affirmed

Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 126, 380 S.E.2d 8 (Va. Ct. App.) (appellate review focuses on trial court rulings)
Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 589 S.E.2d 444 (Va. Ct. App.) (single argument does not preserve distinct legal points)
Correll v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 311, 591 S.E.2d 712 (Va. Ct. App.) (same-argument preservation requirement)
Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476, 405 S.E.2d 1 (Va. Ct. App.) (closing argument does not preserve legal rulings; motion to strike required)
Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 487 S.E.2d 269 (Va. Ct. App.) (ends-of-justice exception requires miscarriage of justice)
Davis v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 96, 570 S.E.2d 875 (Va. Ct. App.) (standard for applying ends-of-justice exception)
Dodge v. Dodge, 2 Va. App. 238, 343 S.E.2d 363 (Va. Ct. App.) (appellate standard for overturning fact findings)