838 S.E.2d 538
Va.2020Background:
- Defendant Calvin Darnell Butcher was convicted under Va. Code § 46.2-894 (hit-and-run/reporting) after running another driver (Pegram) off the road and approaching her without providing identifying information.
- Trial court found the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Butcher failed to report as required; the Court of Appeals affirmed on sufficiency grounds.
- The Court of Appeals sua sponte held the statute’s reporting requirement was disjunctive (report to any one listed recipient), even though Butcher had conceded on appeal the requirement was conjunctive.
- The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the conviction by adopting the Court of Appeals’ sufficiency analysis (Butcher failed to report to either law enforcement or the other driver) but vacated the Court of Appeals’ statutory holding and declined to decide whether the reporting duty is conjunctive or disjunctive.
- Separate concurrences: Justices McCullough and Mims would hold the statute conjunctive and urged prompt legislative clarification; Justices Koontz and Powell would accept a disjunctive reading but also affirmed the conviction on sufficiency grounds.
- The Court emphasized judicial restraint: avoid issuing unnecessary, sua sponte interpretations of ambiguous statutes when a narrower dispositive ground (sufficiency of evidence) resolves the case.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Butcher failed to satisfy § 46.2-894 reporting duties | Commonwealth: evidence shows Butcher did not provide name/address/license/registration to law enforcement or the other driver, so conviction proper | Butcher: may have reported to police (or otherwise complied); facts do not exclude that possibility | Court: Affirmed — factfinder reasonably found Butcher failed to report to either required recipient; conviction affirmed |
| Whether § 46.2-894 requires conjunctive reports (to both law enforcement and the other person) or is disjunctive (to any one listed recipient) | Commonwealth (and Butcher’s concession at COA): statute is conjunctive — must report to both law enforcement and the person/driver/custodian | Court of Appeals (sua sponte) and some justices: statute is disjunctive; others argue conjunctive | Court: Vacated COA’s disjunctive holding and declined to decide the conjunctive/disjunctive question; left the matter unresolved and noted need for legislative clarity |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 527 (Va. 1976) (construed former reporting statute as conjunctive)
- Waldrop v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 210 (Va. 1998) (presumption that recodification does not effect substantive change)
- Neel v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 389 (Va. Ct. App. 2007) (identification requirement facilitates investigation)
- Milazzo v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 734 (Va. 2008) (purpose of § 46.2-894 is to protect injured victims and ensure liability assessment)
- Cook v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 427 (Va. 1983) (hypotheses of innocence must flow from evidence, not speculation)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (U.S. 1803) (judiciary’s duty to say what the law is)