819 S.E.2d 862
Va. Ct. App.2018Background
- Late-night incident: On March 14, 2015, after appellant Calvin Butcher (recently broken up with Alicia Pegram) followed her from her driveway, he swerved into the driver’s side of her car, causing her to run off the road. He then approached her car yelling and banging on the window.
- Victim fled: Alicia called 911 but left the scene because she felt unsafe; she could not reliably hear the specifics of what Butcher said when he approached.
- Owner contacted: About 60–90 minutes later Butcher called Gary Pegram (car owner/father), offering to pay half the damage; Gary did not testify that Butcher gave his license or registration numbers.
- Police investigation: Officer Compere investigated, testified he never received a report from Butcher and had no ID/registration information when he sought warrants that morning.
- Procedural posture: Butcher was convicted of misdemeanor failure to stop/exchange information under Va. Code § 46.2-894; he appealed arguing insufficient evidence that he failed to provide the required information to any listed recipient and that preexisting knowledge of his identity excused compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 46.2-894 requires reporting to all listed persons (conjunctive) or any one (disjunctive) | Commonwealth (and initially appellant at argument) argued conjunctive application | Butcher argued sufficiency should be judged under disjunctive reading or that he in fact complied | Court held statute is disjunctive (report to any one listed person suffices); Banks’ conjunctive reading was superseded by recodification |
| Whether Butcher provided required info to Alicia at the scene | Commonwealth: circumstances (rage, yelling, banging) indicate he did not convey license/registration forthwith | Butcher: he stopped and attempted to communicate; Alicia’s inability to hear leaves reasonable doubt | Held: Evidence supports inference he did not provide the required information to Alicia |
| Whether the 60–90 minute phone call to Gary satisfied the "forthwith" reporting requirement and conveyed required info | Butcher: call to Gary shows he contacted the vehicle custodian and may have provided info | Commonwealth: call was not "forthwith" and Gary did not recount receiving license/registration | Held: Call was not "forthwith" under the facts and record shows Gary was not given the required information |
| Whether possibility Butcher called some law-enforcement officer creates reasonable hypothesis of innocence | Butcher: absence of testimony from every possible officer leaves open that he contacted law enforcement | Commonwealth: no evidence he contacted any officer; investigating officer received no such report | Held: Hypothesis speculative; evidence supports inference he did not report to law enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 527, 230 S.E.2d 256 (Va. 1976) (interpreting predecessor statute as conjunctive; later statutory recodification changed controlling text)
- Clarke v. Galdamez, 292 Va. 228, 789 S.E.2d 106 (Va. 2016) (summary of elements of § 46.2-894 recognizing reporting to law enforcement or other person satisfies requirement)
- Farhoumand v. Commonwealth, 288 Va. 338, 764 S.E.2d 95 (Va. 2014) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 769, 418 S.E.2d 731 (Va. Ct. App. 1992) (prior acquaintance of victim does not excuse providing statutorily required identification information)