Garcia v. Commonwealth
60 Va. App. 262
Va. Ct. App.2012Background
- Garcia charged with assault and battery of a law enforcement officer, resisting arrest, two obstruction of justice counts, and appearing intoxicated in public.
- Garcia elected jury trial; during voir dire, court asked if any reason would prevent full attention and impartial verdict.
- Bergy indicated concern about living near the area where events occurred and fear family or friends might seek her out as a juror.
- Defense argued Bergy’s fear indicated bias; court declined to strike for cause, noting Bergy could be fair and would sit as a juror.
- Bergy was removed by a peremptory strike; Garcia was convicted on all charges except appearing intoxicated in public, which the jury acquitted; appellate challenge followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred in refusing to strike Bergy for cause | Garcia argues Bergy’s fear shows bias and impairs impartiality | Garcia contends Bergy could still be fair; court observed demeanor and total responses | No abuse of discretion; Bergy not shown biased and could be impartial |
| Whether Bergy required rehabilitation before seating | Garcia asserts Bergy’s initial disqualifying concern required rehabilitation | Rehabilitation not required where concern is candor and no bias shown | Not required; no further rehabilitation needed |
| Whether appellate deference to trial court's voir dire rulings applies | Garcia argues ruling should be overturned due to apparent bias | Court properly weighed demeanor and responses; superior position to assess impartiality | upheld; no manifest error in denial of strike |
Key Cases Cited
- Townsend v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 325 (2005) (prejudicial error when forced to use peremptory strikes for non-excludable veniremen)
- Breeden v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 297 (1976) (juror bias must be shown; rehabilitation not guaranteed by leading questions)
- Green v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 105 (2001) (appellate review defers to circuit court on voir dire credibility)
- Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (1984) (demeanor and explanation of responses; judge best positioned to assess impartiality)
- Barrett v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 823 (2001) (abuse of discretion standard for voir dire rulings)
- Bennett v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 448 (1988) (rehabilitation principles after initial disqualifying comment)
- United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000) (peremptory challenges and cause challenges interplay)